#in retrospect i can view him more like a fictional character that's written to be konda cold and abrasive on the surface

[robinsnest2111]

whenever I see The Sopranos mentioned anywhere I'm reminded of my storytelling and programming teacher at college. it's one of his favourite shows and he had us analyse an episode in class.

that man gave me the worst anxiety of my life just by being the way he is and it not meshing well with my own issues but I hope he's doing alright nowadays

[thetypedwriter]

All the Young Dudes Fanfiction Review

All the Young Dudes Fanfiction Review by MsKingBean89

So. 

This is a first. 

If you’ve been following this blog for some time, then you know I generally read young adult books and write far too lengthy reviews on them with the occasional outlier of adult fiction, mystery, sci-fi, etc. 

At any given time, I usually have both a physical book that I’ve bought from somewhere that I’m working on (right now it’s Firekeeper's Daughter by Angeline Boulley) as well as a fanfiction that I reserve until before I go to bed (my treat for a day well lived). 

Fanfiction is something that I’ve mentioned copious amounts of times on this blog in varying degrees, but this is the first time I’ll be writing an actual review for one of them on this platform. 

The reason for this is myriad. 

One, this fanfiction called All the Young Dudes is a far-cry from your normal standardized fanfiction of 5-50,000 words-something I can easily consume in a few minutes to a few hours. 

Nope, this behemoth ends on a staggering 526,969 words and 188 chapters, not including bonus chapters and extra in-universe canonical content the author has also written and published. Roughly speaking, if this was actually published onto paper it would be well over 2,000 pages. 

2,000 pages. 

Yeah. And I enjoyed every single moment of it. 

Two, while I read a lot of fanfiction I generally don’t put any of it on this blog because while I’ve dedicated it to published novels, I also usually have very simple feelings about fanfiction. My thoughts run the gambit of: It was good, it was fluffy, it was a train-wreck, so on and so forth. 

Normally my reviews are so long and wordy because I have too many thoughts about the published books that I read and I need an outlet to let them loose. 

Whether because of its longevity or because of its content, All the Young Dudes is a story I find myself having a profusion of thoughts for. Hence, the birth of this review. 

If fanfiction isn’t your thing, feel free to skip this particular review of mine (although fanfiction is a gift to this world and you should really rethink your stance on it if you don’t like it, just saying). 

Third, All the Young Dudes is well written and rivals any actual published content. 

Fourth, because of how extensive this fanfiction is, it took me over a month to read it-time I generally would have been reading something else. Instead of leaving you all hanging for a few more weeks until I finish Firekeeper's Daughter (don’t hold your breath-the book is sort of a slog for me personally right now), I decided to just take the jump and write my first-ever typedwriter review for a fanfiction. 

Fanfiction has been a part of my life for the better part of almost two decades now. It was truly something I found by accident and in retrospect, it’s insane to me that it’s still something that brings me continuous joy and happiness. 

I discovered fanfiction when I was 11-years-old and deeply obsessed with the Harry Potter fandom. 

Now, as an overall disclaimer I completely disagree with J.K. Rowling’s stances of gender and biology and differ wholeheartedly with her views of trans and non-binary individuals. With that said, I still love Harry Potter as a story and while I no longer buy anything that profits J.K. Rowling directly, I still love the fandom and the people in it, including fanworks like All the Young Dudes. 

When I was 11, the seventh Harry Potter book had yet to come out and like many other people in this time period of agony while waiting for 2007 to roll around so that I could find out what happened, I discovered fanfiction as a way to fill in that ache I was so keenly feeling. 

I found myself suddenly immersed in this world of online fiction-both good and bad-but completely entrancing all the same. 

I never left. 

That is to say, I did eventually move onto other fandoms with their own fanfiction cultures, but Harry Potter was still my first in terms of fanfiction and introducing me to the concept as a whole. 

Specifically and maybe oddly, I never found myself curious for actual fanfiction about Harry or Hermione or Ron. In my mind, I already knew what had happened to them and reading about them in fanfiction was redundant. 

In addition, the first fanfiction I just happened to come across was a Lily/James marauder era fanfiction on mugglenet.com

This idea immediately intrigued me as fans as a whole knew next to nothing about the infamous Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs and while I knew everything I needed to about Harry Potter it was intoxicating to think that I could learn about a time before the series had existed and about characters who were important, but off screen. 

I was hooked and devoured as much as I could for most of middle school about the marauders and Lily and James’ romance in particular (I even wrote and published some of my own that will go unmentioned as they are truly really terrible). 

That being said, I haven’t read a Harry Potter fanfiction in years. I grew up and out of the fandom eventually thanks to Twilight and from there I’ve bounced from fandom to fandom as I’ve aged and consumed different things and fallen in love with different characters and different worlds. 

That isn’t to say I’ve forgotten though. 

I still remember my favorite marauder stories, my favorite Sirius Black/OFC (original female character), and my favorite baby Harry drabbles. They made such a huge impression on me and even though it’s been sixteen years, I still recall those stories with fond nostalgia and jubilation. 

Which is why it’s almost ironic that I would return to this particular time period of the marauders with All the Young Dudes. 

In a fashion that’s almost scarily full circle, I happened to be on Youtube one day and saw a recommendation video about this girl reviewing a fanfiction called All the Young Dudes. Now, youtube book reviews aren’t uncommon, but a thirty minute video for a fanfiction? Not your typical sighting. 

So out of pure curiosity, I searched All the Young Dudes fanfiction on Google and low and behold the overwhelming and top results were all for a marauder-era fanfiction by MsKingBean89. Piqued, I clicked on the link in ao3 and thought why not? 

While I’ve mainly been reading in other fandoms recently (BTS, some anime and manga, All for the Game) I had been in a little bit of a slump for finding a really good, really alluring story for some time and really didn’t think I had anything to lose by reading All the Young Dudes, especially as the more research I did, the more I found how popular it was-a plethora of videos on youtube, tiktok compilations, and dozens of fanart posts. 

Plus, it had been so long since I had read anything from my progenitor fandom and the thought of going back was strangely comforting.

Hence the journey of reading All the Young Dudes began and oh what a journey it was. 

Now, that this review is already five pages in, I should probably tell you what on earth All the Young Dudes is actually about. 

The whole story is a marauder-era fanfiction told from Remus Lupin’s POV from the summer of 1971 when Remus is 11-years-old to the summer of 1995 when he is 35-five-years-old. It is an in-depth portrayal of Remus’ time at Hogwarts from year one to year seven and then going all the way up to the start of the second wizarding world, ending around the time Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix begins. 

While already the scope makes this a massive undertaking, the author also includes all canonical content from the original series involving Remus, the Marauders, and the time period and incorporates it into her fanfiction-making it canon compliant from start to finish. 

While a very large portion of this story is not romantic, there is eventual WolfStar (Remus Lupin/Sirius Black) and if you have read the original Harry Potter series...well. You know things don't end up super dandy for these two characters in particular so you know how the story will end before it begins. 

This fanfiction left me speechless for so many reasons. 

The scope and length is frankly unbelievable. This fanfiction was published on March 2, 2017 and it was completed on November 12, 2018.

….how?

How did she manage that? I frankly have no idea, but I am in complete and utter awe at her ability to write content with such a magnitude and actually complete it. She gets an award just for that honestly. 

Not only that, but the fanfiction is actually superbly well-written. I won’t lie and say it’s the most poignant and beautiful piece of literature I’ve ever consumed, but it was consistent in its pacing, characterization, themes, motifs, and structure, which, for 2,000 pages, is an incredible achievement when you think about it. 

Speaking of characterization, everyone was So. Well. Done. 

Remus was such an interesting POV to read from and while he was compliant in every sense of the word-werewolf, prefect, bookish-MsKingBean89 added so much more to his character and fleshed him out so incredibly that it’s truly tragic that he’s not a real person. 

And to that extent, she does this with all of the characters. You see James’ optimism and leadership, Sirius’ arrogance and loyalty, Peter’s jealousy and chess skills. 

Every character was so well-rounded and real. She did an incredible job of taking the bits and pieces from the canon series and using that to build up her own flesh and blood people with motivations, likes, dislikes, dreams, and desires. 

That being said, she also had 2,000 pages to do it sooooooo it would be bad if the characters weren’t fleshed out by the end honestly. 

In addition, I really appreciated that she didn’t just focus on Remus, Sirius, James and Peter. Lily Evans played a critical role in Remus’ school life and after and so did the other Gryffindor girls like Marlene and Mary. 

Too often, the focus is on the boys and their close friendship and while that was a huge focus, we also get to see Remus develop friendships with the girls in his own right and other friends as well that were often OC’s of the author’s. 

Now. OC’s are generally something I dislike. I’m reading fanfiction to read about particular characters that I’ve sought after, not to read about some imaginary cast. However, just like any of the canon characters, all of the OC characters were well-developed and played crucial roles in Remus’ development-while either at Hogwarts or after-and I found myself not minding them in the least. In a few cases (Grant) I actually really loved them. 

The biggest draw for this fanfiction for me was Remus’ time at Hogwarts. It was so well-written and incredibly descriptive and I found myself thrust back into the world of magic so suddenly and seamlessly that it was like I never left. 

MsKingBean89 includes so many intricate details and builds up the world so beautifully that I’d recommend any Harry Potter fan to consume it, just to get some good Hogwarts material out of it. 

Another thing I greatly appreciate about this fanfiction was the slow burn. I’ve read slow burn before (All for the Game trilogy anybody?), but this truly took the cake. Sirius and Remus don’t properly get together until the end of year six going into year seven. That’s over 100 chapters in. 

100 chapters out of 188. 

Meaning that over half of this beast doesn’t have the main pairing even together. For some people, this could be a drawback. You might think to yourself: It takes how long for them to confess their feelings and stop being prats?

A very, very long time. 

However...it didn’t bug me. I like slow burn to begin with, but being along for the ride as Remus goes from being a child to an adolescent with unrequited feelings to being in a relationship with someone he loves is so rewarding and fulfilling that the 100 previous chapters are completely and utterly worth it. 

MsKingBean89 develops them so well and so carefully that the payoff is so sweet and satisfactory that it's enough to bring the tears right then and there. 

The last huge feat of this fanfiction for me was the author’s dedication to canon not just confined to Hogwarts and the Harry Potter books, but also to the time period. Either she lived through the 70’s and 80’s herself or she had done her due diligence when it comes to research because anything from London anti-gay laws to British slang was commonplace in her fic. 

I found it completely amazing how she was able to tie in real-time historical and cultural moments like famous singers and movies playing at the time alongside convoluted muggle politics warring with the wizarding ones. 

I was so blown away by the accuracy and genuine love behind this fic that it often brought me out of my own mind to simply ponder once again how much work this was and how well she was delivering it. 

Even unpleasant things, like homophobia and bigotry, are dealt with in a very carefully constructed way that is aligned with the time period in which the story takes place. 

Unfortunately, everything beautiful is not without flaws and All the Young Dudes is not the exception, although it’s flaws are nary compared to its achievements. 

The few complaints I have with this fic are honestly quite negligible. 

First, there are a few grammatical and punctuation errors. Very few, but I did notice some. 

Next, and again, this complaint is really just me whining, but...the end of the fic was really fucking sad. The end of this whole story took me so much time to complete simply because I didn’t want to read it. 

I know what happened during the first wizarding war and I also know what ended it (James and Lily Potter dying, Harry being shipped off to the Dursley’s, Sirius imprisoned for a murder he didn’t commit, Peter presumed dead) and in one fell swoop Remus lost everything and everyone he ever loved. 

After spending over 1,500 pages of Remus growing to love these people it is absolutely devastating and heart-breaking to see him lose it all. 

The last handful of chapters are just really, really sad and it makes me wonder why MsKingBean89 decided to write it in the first place. Frankly, I don't know why she didn't write about Remus’ time at Hogwarts and stop after graduation because we all know what happens after that and none of it is good. 

Looking back, I wish I could time travel and tell myself to stop at chapter 150. I truly didn’t need to read about the tragedies that happened after that and the hell that all of the characters go through. 

And while it does end on a….sort of kind of maybe positive (?) note with Sirius and Remus reuniting briefly once the events of Harry Potter and Prisoner of Azkaban take place, it was really tainted and bittersweet for me knowing that in a year Sirius would die and Remus would marry his fucking cousin and have a child. 

Urgh. 

I just can’t. 

That being said, I understand it’s not the author’s fault and I’m not saying it is. She wrote a canon compliant fic to the end and it was my choice to continue reading. That being said, she said she ended it before the events of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix because Sirius and Remus are happy and back together and she didn’t want to write what was coming next if she continued. 

I truly, truly get that. 

But in the same vein, why even write the events of the first wizarding world to begin with then? I’m confused with that response as it doesn’t make much sense to me. I felt like ending it right then and there was not a happy ending. They’re together, yes, but at this point they are both shells of who they used to be. Both have severe trauma and PTSD and frankly I don’t even know if I agree with them being together just because they’ve put each other through so much. 

It’s just an interesting choice at the end of the day in terms of the author. 

Once again, however, I truly understand that she can do whatever she wants and that she doesn’t owe anyone anything, especially as she’s writing this for free and just because. So please keep in mind that although I’m complaining, I truly understand how fortunate we are to even have this fic in the first place. 

Okay. 

Secondly, my only other huge complaint is that MsKingBean89 made Remus gay. Not bi, not pan. Gay. 

You could argue that Remus just calls himself gay in the fanficiton as he didn’t know about other kinds of sexuality. You could argue that Remus’ sexuality changes and develops as he ages and experiences trials and tribulations. You could argue that it was a sign of times like so much else in this fic. 

I frankly just found it to be a frustrating choice as the fic is canon compliant and even though it ends before the events of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows we know that Remus eventually marries Tonks and has a baby son named Teddy Lupin. 

How does that make sense?

I tried very, very hard to come up with some sort of feasible explanation for how a gay man would have ended up with the love of his life’s female cousin and truly could not think of one that was not fucked up to some degree. 

Again. I know I’m being nit-picky, but it irked me that she made this choice regarding Remus’ sexuality and essentially ended her fic with Remus stuck in a corner regarding how the series actually ends. 

At the end of the day, all of the negatives are truly, truly not important. I’m just whinging to whine and to express my thoughts, but I do once again understand that MsKingBean89 isn’t profiting from this fic and that she can do what she wants as is her prerogative. 

I hope I was able to express that while I understand that, I can still be frustrated with some of the choices she made. 

To wrap this all up, All the Young Dudes is a masterpiece and is a must-read for anyone who loves Harry Potter, the Marauders, or Wolfstar. I was blown away by the sheer magnitude, the love and care she put into her craft, the slow and deliberate development of all the characters, the beautifully constructed love between Sirius and Remus, and the intricate world-both muggle and magic-that surrounded the story like a cocoon. 

I am so happy I found this fic and I truthfully am floundering at what to do with myself next. If you have any more current Marauder era fics that I’ve missed out in the past eleven years, please don’t hesitate to let me know. 

Recommendation: Go read All the Young Dudes. For weeks, you will cry, you will laugh, you will despair, and you will smile. This fanfiction will make you wish this was canon and in my mind, it now is. 

Score: 8/10

Links:

1. All the Young Dudes on ao3 

2. The Youtube Video about All the Young Dudes that made me aware of its existence 

[mittensmorgul]

Hello. Is there a chance that you know when the decision about Chuck beeing the villain of the entire show was made? And more specifically was season 9 written with this point of view?

Hi there! I’m sorry this has been sitting in my inbox for a few days, but I’ve been turning it over and over in my head trying to figure out how to actually answer. Because I don’t think this is something that was like the writers just suddenly decided, and began plotting everything else in the story around that fact, you know? And while it might be interesting to puzzle over, it doesn’t affect how I personally engage with the show.

I’ve written many times about the difference between a Watsonian Reading of a text versus a Doylist Reading of a text, and why sometimes understanding the Doylist might inform the watsonian read you’re willing to accept, so I can understand the interest in wondering if there was a moment in the writing room where it was declared that Chuck Was Not A Good Guy, and that the entire story should be told with that underlying assumption. For me, personally, it’s been clear since 4.18 that Chuck was not really a good guy, long before it was revealed that he was really God.

Was this always the intent of the writers? We just don’t know. I don’t think it matters. He always came across to me (ESPECIALLY in 5.22) as a self-important dick... but I know a lot of people really love his monologue on everything, and have always had rather warm feelings about it. So was their intent to make him seem smugly self-satisfied from the start, or is that an angle that later showrunners and writers seized upon and played up? Does it even matter when the story has made it clear now that Chuck has been the villain of the entire show from the start?

I understand how my personal opinion from the start here has probably made it easier for me to roll with the more recent canon revelations about Chuck than it would be for folks who have always believed that Chuck was a Good Guy from the start, that God would ultimately be on their side, or that if God wasn’t actively helping them, it was only because he was testing them or having them prove themselves to themselves or whatever. I understand people have clung to the notion that he was essentially still a good guy, even through all the shadiness. I just... could never see him that way.

ESPECIALLY after s11. I don’t think Chuck’s characterization has really changed since then. It’s just been... unmasked for what it really is. I think everything Chuck The Prophet was saying back in 4.18 about being a cruel and capricious god was... pretty on the nose. Then again, I’m fairly sure that Andrew Dabb took over the showrunning duties in mid-s11, and began setting up what he knew would eventually become the series endgame run, with Chuck as the final big bad. So that run up to the end of s11... was Dabb’s doing...

I don’t really know how much Chuck’s character (his fictional being, in addition to just... his personality, like how we’d talk about the character of real people, the quality of his essential being or whatever) played a part in the writing from 5.22 when he “vanished” through 10.05 when he appeared to tell Marie “not bad” at the end of her musical, and then again from that point until he dragged Metatron to the bar at the end of the universe in 11.20. I’m fairly certain that as soon as they began writing s11 and determined that Amara would be “God’s sister” that they knew that Chuck would have to make an appearance eventually. And the entire storyline of the MoC having been derailed and repurposed in mid s10 likely facilitated the escalation of the story. But again... I’ve written heckloads of stuff about s10, the accordion plot, how Carver had been writing toward a series finale in 10 until they got word they’d be renewed and wanted to keep going, and jerked the whole story onto a completely different narrative track in the back half of s10. As a seasonal arc, s10 will forever be my least favorite, because it’s just... a mess. Yes, even s6 comes across more coherent than s10, just looking at the overarching narrative structure. Episode wise, s10 probably wins for a few stellar entries, but yeeeeeesh, it’s a structural disaster overall.

But I have a tag for that, and lots and lots of posts, and Carver himself saying that this was exactly what happened there, so... I think it’s probably valid to say that the writers really hadn’t even thought much about Chuck until the MoC became about the Darkness in 10.23, and then they had to invent a whole mythology to bring in this super-powerful God-level power to the story, and “God’s sister!” sounded like a solid plan...

So I’d say that Chuck was being set up at that point to have to answer for his “original crime” of locking up the Darkness, you know? Though I don’t know how much of how it played out by the end of s11 was Carver’s doing, or Dabb’s. I am fairly certain that from the moment Dabb took over (quietly mid-s11, and possibly knowing he’d be tapped to take over before then and beginning to lay down tracks toward his eventual story plan, and then completely by 11.23) that what we’re seeing play out in s15 was always his intent.

But in s9? I don’t think Chuck was really even on any of the writers’ radar, at all. Even if they all were working from the perspective that he was God in the Supernatural universe. I just don’t think it affected what they were writing, you know?

Well, I mean, there’s earlier episodes where God was referenced... I mean 5.16 Dark Side of the Moon (hey, written by Dabb!) where we learned that God knew all about their problems, but he didn’t think it was HIS problem... I mean from that moment on, it’s really difficult to think of God as a charcacter who’s on their side, you know? And the end of the story he’d been content with was Sam in Hell for eternity, and Dean miserable in suburbia for eternity, and Cas probably being subjugated by Heaven and the Apocalypse starting again anyway... I mean... ew...

Or in 6.20, when Cas prayed to God, begging for a sign, begging for help, to do the right thing, he got NOTHING in return, zip, zilch. He did the only thing he could, and in retrospect, wasn’t releasing the leviathans something Chuck was probably deliriously happy about? More monsters and mayhem! A beloved hero character becoming the villain in the process! I mean, in s9 when Metatron was “Playing God” and trying to write his own story of the universe, isn’t this exactly the story he wanted to create too? Kinda on the nose there, even if they weren’t actively portraying Chuck himself as the bad guy here. They were explicitly telling us that Metatron was literally rewriting God’s playbook as self-insert fanfic.

So even if they weren’t actively writing Chuck as the big bad, they used Metatron-- the scribe of God-- to fulfill that function. In 11.20, when Chuck talks with Metatron about his turn playing God:

CHUCK: You know, you really are a terrific editor, Metatron.METATRON: (Chuckles.) Well, I was a terrible writer. A worse god. It's good I've got something going for me.CHUCK: (Takes off his glasses and stops typing.) Yeah, you know, I have to say, I didn't see the whole evil-turn thing coming.METATRON: Mm-hmm.

CHUCK: (Chuckling.) Why did you try to be me?METATRON: That was just a sad, pathetic cry for attention.CHUCK: (Chuckling.) Who's attention were you trying to get?METATRON: Yours.

He takes all of this and tries to turn it around, to deflect blame from himself as if he hadn’t literally done everything Metatron did, and more.

METATRON: It wasn't just the saps who were praying to you. The angels prayed, too. And so did I – every day.CHUCK: I know.METATRON: You want to sell the best-selling autobiography of all time? You explain to me – Tell me why you abandoned me. Us.CHUCK: Because you disappointed me. You all disappointed me.METATRON: (Stands up and looks at CHUCK with wet eyes.) No, look. I know I'm a disappointment, but you're wrong about humanity. They are your greatest creation because they're better than you are.(CHUCK starts to look more guilty as he looks at METATRON.)METATRON: Yeah, sure, they're weak and they cheat and steal and... destroy and disappoint. But they also give and create and they sing and dance and love. And above all, they never give up! But, you do!

But even after Metatron’s sacrifice, even after everything nearly falls apart, Chuck STILL tries to weasel out of responsibility for anything, still tries to deflect and minimize, even blames Amara for why he had to lock her away in the first place. And that hasn’t changed about him one whit, from the start right through the present. It’s always been an essential part of his character, and he’s been called out on it repeatedly in s15 by Becky, by Amara, by Sam, by Dean... probably by Michael, too. Like... this is how he’s always been, it’s how he’s always been written, even if the intent had never been to explicitly unmask him as the ultimate big bad of the entire series until the end of s11.

Like Amara accused him in 11.22:

Chuck: I'm sorry. For this, for everything.Amara: An apology at last. What's sorry to me? I spent millions of years crammed in that cage... alone... and afraid, wishing -- begging for death, because of you! And what was my crime, brother?!Chuck: The world needed to be born! And you wouldn't let me! Amara, you give me no choice.Amara: That's your story. Not mine. The real reason you banished me, why I couldn't be allowed to exist... you couldn't stand it. No, we were equals. We weren't great or powerful, because we stood only in relation to each other. You think you made the archangels to bring light? No. You made them to create lesser beings, to make you large, to make you Lord. It was ego! You wanted to be big!

and he admitted to Becky in 15.04:

CHUCK: Things were said. Uh… Now I’ve found msyself low on, um… resources. I went to ask my sister for help, and she rejected me. ‘Cause she sucks. And now I’m just… stuck. So, I thought I’d come see you, my number-one fan. And, I don’t know, see if you can help make me feel big again.BECKY: So, you want me to… fluff you?CHUCK: I mean, no.BECKY: You do. You thought you could just come back to me, your pathetic ex, your number-one fan, and get what you’ve always gotten from me… a nice big crank on your ego.

Meanwhile, in 11.22, Amara had asked him if he wouldn’t change, why should she? Yet... she DID change, beginning in 11.23 when she reconciled with Chuck. Only... he never did change at all.

So... to finally circle back to your question again... I don’t know if it’s relevant what the writers were thinking about Chuck and any random potential for him to return to the story in any capacity, let alone as God, let alone as the eventual Ultimate Series Big Bad back when they were writing s9. I don’t even think God/Chuck was on their radar at all, because I don’t think the entire MoC storyline was crafted with the end result that it would be the key to the Darkness’s prison. At least not way back in s9 when the MoC was dreamed up. It only ever evolved into that because of the narrative disaster of the s10 plot accordion. Which is why, while I fucking HATE s10 for it, I can’t be all that mad about what it unwittingly brought about, either.

Heck I hope any of this makes any sense whatsoever. This is one of those subjects that’s just like “insert key, wind mittens up, watch her go” :’D

[gurguliare]

Aw man, I’m feeling sentimental for a fully unrelated reason so I wanted to take this moment to say that I really love Friends at the Table and it has been a comfort to me during some dull and sad parts of my life, and also remained there for me after I shed a lot of that dullness and sadness. I still find great charm in the show even as Austin and the players’ storytelling interests have, with time, diverged from mine, and for every choice that distances me there are more to woo me back... I used to feel FATT’s best moments were the ones that came like bolts from the blue: strange, gorgeous, fully-formed scenes and transformed ideas. But there are also themes, especially in Twilight Mirage and late-season Hieron, that struggle hard to get underway, gaining momentum creakingly after a hundred hours of nothing... I like that style of surprise too; it’s nice when against all odds a story earns your patience. “Stockholm Surprise.”

...I mean, I still think Spring in Hieron is pretty bad. But I liked the epilogue, and it made me less regretful about having listened to the rest of the season. Mainly I liked the climax and the Understanding, and I especially liked, and wish they had kept, the original name of the Six, which seemed to best capture the most important and most underwritten of Hieron’s throughlines---that the horror of divinity is the horror of unilateral action, and that there’s no categorical difference between mortals acting secretly and destructively to serve “the public good” and gods doing the same. So the Six from the Last University mirror the Six from Marielda and the original pantheon of gods, complete with numbering chicanery. “Utilitarianism is wrong because it’s a fundamentally paternalistic, tyrannical dream that inflexibly robs individuals of their right to self-determination and discovery; it is so corrosively wrong that you are not excused in using utilitarian methods to fight a greater or more catastrophic fiat,” is a surprisingly rare message to find in genre fiction, which tends more toward “Utilitarianism is wrong... oh shit, look at all those people who died, though. Kind of makes you think.” That’s not to say that the above view of utilitarianism is co-signed by yours truly, but it was nevertheless refreshing to find it so clearly articulated and pressed on by the story, even to the point of the absurd “and so...?” stalemate to which Hieron devolves. And so, nothing.

It made me think about how sad I am about Samol, as a character, and as prime wellspring of the trauma and abusive love that characterized his whole family; I find his narrative shadow really compelling in retrospect, but his decision to save Samot’s life without Samot’s consent---kind of the ultimate reconfiguration and evocative even of Samol’s own birth from the nothing---should have been explicitly linked to Samot’s meltdown and actions in the finale. Also to Adelaide’s thinking around Adularia. Because Samol’s death is a refusal to change that he offers as the nearest thing to changing: he sees the harm he’s caused, regrets it, but even the gift of freedom for his children has to be given against their will. As a human narrative, it’s incredibly dark, and as a godly one it touches me in its unapologetic apartness. His ability to care and empathize with people never allows him to act as a person, with a person’s responsibility to others; alone of the gods, he really seems to have no choice but to do as he sees fit, beyond reproach or challenge, because no one can challenge him and to pretend otherwise would be a new way of imposing his will. Nor can he remove himself from the world he is. Which is like the truest parent conundrum, haha. ... ... But ... he nonetheless is written, played, and felt as a person, just a person beyond others’ reach. Which I know I’ve mentioned before as my favorite early Hieron theme and, well, here it is again, in the last place I expected, even if the season really buries it. So. I’m sad. End of post.

[pixelgrotto]

A penny for my Witchery thoughts

The Witcher Netflix series was released at the tail end of last month, giving Geralt of Rivia the interesting distinction of a literary character who’s now a well-known TV protagonist but just happened to achieve international fame through video games first. (Aye, there was a Polish film and show in 2001 and 2002 which called Geralt a “Hexer” instead of a “Witcher,” but they’re not exactly good, though perhaps worth a peek on YouTube for chuckles.) 

Geralt’s adventures - both in the stories written by Andrzej Sapkowski and the games developed by CD Projekt Red - are close to my heart. I’ve spilled a fair amount of digital ink writing about the franchise, and my playthrough of the games and subsequent devouring of the books from 2014 to 2016 reignited my appreciation for fantasy and served as the impetus that got me reading more genre fiction and eventually delving into tabletop RPGs in 2017, leading to my current obsession with Dungeons & Dragons. I’m naturally protective of material that means a lot to me, so when the Netflix series was announced I viewed it with only subdued optimism. After all, with the possible exception of a certain HBO thing based on George R.R. Martin’s books (which now seems to be viewed worse in retrospect after the final season), fantasy doesn’t have a great track record on the small screen. I also wasn’t especially impressed when Henry Cavill was cast as Geralt, since I primarily know him from the recent Superman movies, which paint the guy in such a dour light and force him to constantly grimace like someone who’s just taken a dump only to discover that there’s no toilet paper in sight. 

But now the show’s out in the wild, and after scanning some mixed reactions (not to mention one truly baffling “review” by two Entertainment Weekly twats who only watched the first episode) I cautiously consumed it with my girlfriend over Christmas break...and can happily report that it’s good. But, it’s also a show that expects its viewers to skip through some mental hoops as we bear witness to three intersecting story lines, all of which are taking place in different eras. Then you’ve got your standard variety of fantasy names, terms and themes, several of which might be tricky to grasp if you’ve never read the books or played the games. For instance, I don’t think they ever bothered to fully explain the “Conjunction of the Spheres” (the time when planets aligned and monsters and humans came to the world, uprooting the indigenous elves and dwarves) or the “Law of Surprise” (when a person’s fate is intertwined with something unexpected - usually an unborn child). I can also see how the show’s numerous mentions of the word “destiny” could seem like wacky dialogue to viewers unaware of the fact that Sapkowski’s realm really does have a strong undercurrent of inescapable fate running through its veins. 

Unique structure and terminology aside, the first episode was more of a slow burn than I’d imagined. It starts with an awesome sequence of Geralt fighting a Kikimora, but then transitions into a fairly serious interpretation of “Lesser Evil” from the first short story collection, The Last Wish. The episode then cuts into the exodus of Ciri from the kingdom of Cintra, an event mostly described in flashback in the second short story anthology, Sword of Destiny. The scenes of death and destruction as Ciri flees her burning kingdom are fairly meandering, as are the interspersed interactions between Geralt and Renfri, a woman with seven loyal followers who was supposed to be a grittier version of Snow White in the books. There are some great fights near the end, but as I watched, I couldn’t help but think that I probably would’ve made the opener speedier and a bit pulpier, especially since the tone of these early Witcher tales was more “tongue in cheek fairy tale deconstruction” than plodding epic fantasy. 

The second episode also took its time, though the decision to detail the plight of Yennefer the sorceress before she uses magic to change her hunchback form into something that she sees as more conventionally attractive is a good one, since this was once again only flashback material in the novels. But the cream of the hour was certainly Jaskier the bard, who’s going by his moniker in the books rather than the “Dandelion” translation that the games used. He’s played by actor Joey Batey with a perfect blend of magnificent bastard bravado, surpassing his portrayal in the games with a larger than life theme song that’s now something of a cult phenomenon, and his characterization made me feel like the show knew what it was doing at the end of the day.

Episode three is where things truly came together for me, since we barrel straight into the Geralt versus Striga battle from Andrzej Sapkowski’s first Witcher short story. It’s a full-on horror interpretation (which I liked but my girl found too spooky), and also full-on fan service for someone like me who still watches the intro cinematic to The Witcher 1 on occasion. And in later episodes, as my head began getting used to the nuances of the three character timeline, the show seemed to find its footing with this delicate blend of fan service, pulp and seriousness. By the time episode 8 rolled around and the character arcs of Geralt, Ciri and Yennefer came full circle with the Battle of Sodden Hill - yet another event that Sapkowski mostly wrote in flashback - I found myself wishing that season two would arrive sooner than 2021, and my girlfriend felt similarly. I also realized why the showrunners decided on the unorthodox timeline - this is a series that’ll probably excel on rewatches, particularly if you already have an idea of what to look out for. 

Series producer Lauren S. Hissrich (who’s quite a joy to follow on Twitter) has mentioned in interviews that this is a show that expects a tad of patience and effort from viewers, but will give a lot in exchange. I’m inclined to agree, and while this depiction of Sapkowski’s lore has some initial roughness around the edges, it ultimately reminds me of how The Witcher 1 was janky even upon its 2007 release but exhibited a unique magic to anyone who stuck with it for more than a handful of hours. Many professional reviewers tend to avoid giving fantasy shows patience and effort (Game of Thrones is an anomaly), which may explain some of the negative reviews. But The Witcher seems to have found a strong-as-nails following from audiences, who made it one of Netflix’s top efforts of 2019, and even friggin’ Anne Rice liked it. (Geralt of Rivia now possesses the other interesting distinction of being a literary character/TV protagonist/video game hero who’s been mentioned in the same breath as Lestat the vampire.) 

Speaking of Geralt, I owe Henry Cavill applause. I didn’t think much of his casting, but he pulled through in the end, delivering a silver-haired hero that’s clearly influenced by the games - particularly in the voice and the occasional spell slinging - but still very much his own take, with nary a “where’s the toilet paper” grimace in sight. Audiences can now take their pick between an iconic video game interpretation of the White Wolf and a likely-soon-to-be-iconic TV version, which is a rare choice to have in fandom, especially for a franchise that was once little known outside of Poland. Toss a coin to your Witcher, indeed.

[marshmallowgoop]

ik you don't want asks about this but as a sexual assault survivor you are absolutely valid on how you feel about Ragyo. I skip the bath scene on every rewatch, and I find her atrocious. The fact that people are attacking you for this is dumb.

Anonymous: Hey man you’re allowed to talk about who you want on your blog. It’s your shit. People are so entitled nowadays and can’t let people have opinions anymore. You’re not dumb, you’re not trying to be offensive. And it hurts seeing how you’re trying to be courteous and step on eggshells and still getting dragged. Like people are allowed to disagree but there’s no need to be rude to someone trying not to be rude. You’re literally saying an opinion. Everyone else relax, my dude. You’re fine.

Anonymous: It’s amazing how all these people can recognize ragyos terrible behavior but insist on having to defend her….

I know these are old asks that I was initially too nervous to answer, but given that I have written on the topic since, I don’t want to leave this support and kindness without a proper response. People going out of their way to stand up for me deserve responses so much more than people going out of their way to insult me, and I want to honor that, even if it’s belated.

Warning for discussions of sexual assault and abuse below.

Part of the reason I did end up writing more on Ragyo Kiryuin is actually due to the sentiments expressed in your comment, first anon. The fact that I, a survivor of sexual assault, was being personally attacked and shamed for sharing that I find the depiction of a literal sexual abuser troublesome… let’s just say that it struck me as very, very wrong. It felt especially wrong because I only spoke up about the situation in the first place because I was asked to.

As the second anon says, I think it’s become difficult to have opinions. (Or perhaps it’s simply always been difficult.) I remember an old post on here that said something like, “The way to become popular on Tumblr is to never have an opinion on anything ever.” And… I feel like there’s a lot of sad truth to that. The most successful fandom blogs tend to be reblog hubs that post artwork and avoid anything that could be so opinionated as to incite drama and controversy, and fandom discourse has become so volatile that anon hate over headcanons is… a thing.

Or perhaps it’s always been a thing, in some way or another.

But in any case, the more I thought about it, the more disturbed I was by what happened. The notion that I should just shut up and stop talking about something that’s very relevant to my own personal experiences, all because my opinion isn’t the same as someone else’s, is gross. Not every survivor will agree with me, and that’s valid; as I explained in the linked post above, my own feelings on this particular situation have changed over the years. But to ridicule me, to call me stupid, to say that I don’t know anything, when I have done nothing but share my own personal thoughts on something and never, ever put anyone down for holding a different view, is not okay. In this case, it’s literally silencing survivors who felt hurt by some of the decisions in the show. 

Your message is so sad to me in retrospect, first anon, because it tells me that other survivors aren’t going to want to speak about this. We’re not going to have as many meaningful conversations about LGBTQ+ representation or the depiction of abuse in fiction because people are going to be too scared to talk about it; they’ll fear that they’ll be as harassed as I was, if not worse. I thank you for sharing your experience with me. It’s reassuring to know that I’m not alone in my thoughts, and I recognize that these aren’t easy topics to discuss, so I really value that you were willing to speak out.

To address your message, third anon, as I elaborated on in my more extensive Ragyo post, I do think I could have spoken better, and I do understand feeling hurt and upset by my opinions; that’s fair, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But I have a hunch that the anon hate firestorm I received was partly because there was the impression that I’m a “gross man who hates Ragyo because she wouldn’t want me because she’s a lesbian.”

And… I have a lot of problems with that. I don’t want to regurgitate my other post too much, so I’d recommend reading that for more discussion on the difference between finding a character bad and thinking that their depiction could have been better, but I do want to add here that I’m not about this kind of demonization of men. Ragyo is a sexual abuser, and in my opinion, her abuses are not presented well. I am a woman, but a man feeling the same way does not automatically make him a “gross man,” especially if he’s also a survivor. 

If the genders were reversed, and Ragyo were a man abusing his sons, portrayed in the same way, I have a feeling that I would never have been attacked like I was. And, personally, that bothers me. I don’t like that female abusers are not taken as seriously. I don’t like that there’s even the argument that the only reason men could possibly dislike Ragyo or her depiction is because she’s a lesbian who wouldn’t want them and not because she’s an absolutely atrocious sexual predator who abuses her own daughters. In scenes that I (and others) find to be glamorized portrayals of assault.

This all got very long, but thank you three for reaching out. I don’t particularly like talking about Ragyo, but if someone is going to ask for my honest opinion on her, it’s… pretty dreadful to then get what I got. I’m still really disappointed about what happened, and I’m sad that this kind of thing discourages meaningful, productive conversation. But I will continue writing my opinionated thinkpieces, and I’m very grateful that they’re not seen as awful garbage by everyone, and I’m very glad that not everyone wants me to just shut up because I’m terrible and stupid. 

Thank you.

[chiseler]

The Greatest Bad Writer in America? Weird, Forgotten Harry Stephen Keeler

Harry Stephen Keeler (1890-1967) enjoys a peculiar kind of fame as a writer. Or "paper-blackener," to quote him. The prose of his mystery novels and pulp stories, written from the 1920s into the 1960s, can be simultaneously balled up, discombobulated, lyrical, cryptic -- even going "utterly blooey" at times. This is from The Riddle of the Traveling Skull, published in 1934:

For it must be remembered that at the time I knew quite nothing, naturally, concerning Milo Payne, the mysterious Cockney-talking Englishman with the checkered long-beaked Sherlockholmsian cap; nor of the latter's "Barr-Bag" which was as like my own bag as one Milwaukee wienerwurst is like another; nor of Legga, the Human Spider, with her four legs and her six arms; nor of Ichabod Chang, ex-convict, and son of Dong Chang; nor of the elusive poetess, Abigail Sprigge; nor of the Great Simon, with his 2163 pearl buttons; nor of--in short, I then knew quite nothing about anything or anybody involved in the affair of which I had now become a part, unless perchance it were my Nemesis, Sophie Kratzenschneiderwümpel--or Suing Sophie!

Viewed through the appropriate lens, Keeler's manifest flaws become avant-garde virtues, as he seems to stretch the novel towards some new form, possibly the radio play or podcast. Neil Gaiman is a fan: "My guiltiest pleasure is Harry Stephen Keeler. He may have been the greatest bad writer America has ever produced. Or perhaps the worst great writer. I do not know. There are few faults you can accuse him of that he is not guilty of. But I love him."

Among the various devotees keeping this "forgotten author" alive, no one has proven more steadfast than Richard Polt, who chairs the philosophy department at Xavier University in Cincinnati and founded the Harry Stephen Keeler Society. http://site.xavier.edu/polt/keeler/

Richard, give us an introduction to Keeler and his work -- and tell us what led you to dedicate so much time and energy to keeping his name alive.

I ran across Keeler by pure accident in 1996, and from the start I was thrilled by the feeling that I was onto something truly weird and forgotten. I’ve always enjoyed digging into some corner of culture, going deep enough that I discover things that just aren’t in sight of today’s conventional wisdom, and finding connections that I would never have found otherwise. That’s exactly what the world of Harry Stephen Keeler has done for me.

Keeler (1890-1967) was a lifelong Chicagoan. His father died when Harry was an infant, and his mother married a series of other ne’er-do-wells who also kept dying on her. Meanwhile, she ran a boarding house for vaudevillians—so Harry was exposed to a wide variety of theatrical types in a city that was teeming with immigrants. He studied to be an electrical engineer and worked for a while at a steel plant, but his real passion was writing. His mom feared that he was going insane, and had him committed to the asylum at Kankakee, Illinois in 1911-1912. But he was released, and managed to make a living publishing quirky little stories with twists. In 1919 he became the editor of the pulp magazine 10 Story Book, which published short fiction and pictures of half-clothed girls. He also edited magazines such as the Chicago Ledger and America’s Humor.

Keeler’s stories began to get more convoluted, and by the late ’20s he was publishing mystery novels with Dutton in the US and Ward Lock in England, including The Spectacles of Mr. Cagliostro, which drew on his experience in the asylum. Things were looking up, but the Depression cut into book sales at the same time as HSK’s novels took a turn for the bizarre. He typically built his novels on the skeleton of an old short story from his youth, or several of them woven together. Sometimes his wife, Hazel Goodwin Keeler, would also contribute a chapter. This all became the occasion for gloriously implausible tales, chock-full of long-winded speeches in dialect; caricatures of every ethnic group from “Swodocks” to “Celestials”; near-future technology such as intercontinental 3D television; and, inevitably, a surprise ending that sends your synapses on a rollercoaster ride. This stuff appealed to an ever narrower audience. Finally, Dutton dropped Keeler in 1942. He was published by the bargain basement Phoenix Press from 1943 to 1948. Ward Lock cut him in 1953. Then he wrote for Spanish and Portuguese publication at $50 a title—or just for himself.

There were definitely some bitterness and frustration in Keeler’s old age, and when Hazel died in 1960, he went into a tailspin. But then he married Thelma Rinaldo, his one-time secretary from America’s Humor, and as he put it, he caught hold of “the greased pig known as the will to live.” Harry collaborated with Thelma on some late novels that have been published only in recent years.

There are two perennial questions about Keeler: Was he mentally ill? And was he a bad writer? Most people’s initial reaction is that he was a terrible writer who had mental problems. But you can also make the case that he knew what he was doing and was very good at it; it’s just that he had an eccentric sense of humor that requires a special sensibility to appreciate. I’m inclined to this latter view, although he does keep me guessing. I suspect that he had some traits that we would classify as belonging to the autistic spectrum, such as a prodigious memory for facts combined with a superficial grasp of human emotion. A Keeler story is not about interiority; it’s about a complex plot that plays games with the reader’s mind.

Describe Keeler's trademark concoction, the "webwork plot." “Web-work” or “webwork” was Keeler’s term for a highly complex plot, which weaves together a number of strands. He introduced the term in 1917 in a series of articles for The Student-Writer, which he then expanded into a fairly long treatise, "The Mechanics (And Kinematics) of Web-Work Plot Construction" (The Author and Journalist, April-November, 1928). Keeler never claimed to have invented the term or the concept; he gave credit to now-forgotten pulp writers such as Bertram Lebhar. But he did consider himself to be a skilled practitioner, and his fans would surely agree.

What’s most delightful in HSK’s theoretical writings on webwork is the diagrams, which show graphically how various characters and objects intersect at key moments in the story. "Mechanics" distinguishes 15 types of “elemental plot combinations” and presents a mind-blowing diagram of Keeler’s 1924 The Voice of the Seven Sparrows. It’s a very tortured plate of spaghetti.

Some of Keeler’s novels (including Sing Sing Nights, Thieves’ Nights, and the series Hangman’s Nights) get their complexity from a 1001 Nights structure: a framework story embraces several stories told by characters. Other Keeler novels get their complexity from endless digressions and red herrings, or tons of factoids that may or may not turn out to be relevant to the main story. Often, the action is told or retold by an unreliable character, instead of being shown to us directly. Inevitably, there’s a big surprise at the end that makes you see the whole plot differently in retrospect.

If you take away the surprise ending, webwork looks a lot like the contemporary literary genre sometimes called “hysterical realism”—the massive, weird, convoluted stories of writers like Pynchon. Keeler pioneered the formal analysis of this kind of tale. If you have a mathematical mind, you’ll appreciate his advice for getting a webwork started:

In conceiving a story or inaugurating a plot which involves threads weaving with threads, if the thread A, or viewpoint character, should figure with the thread B in an opening incident of numerical order "n" (with respect to the incidents in the conditions precedent) there must be invented a following incident "n + 1" involving threads A and C; an incident "n + 2" involving threads A and D; an incident "n + 3" involving threads A and E; and so on up to perhaps at least "n + 4” or "n + 5"; and furthermore "n" must cause "n +1"; "n + 1" must cause "n + 2"; "n + 2” must cause "n + 3" etc.

I’ve tried it—it works!

What's it like living in and among Keelerian natterings over the long haul?

Like one of Pynchon’s paranoid plots, or like Borges’ fantasy encyclopedia that ends up colonizing reality, the Keelerian world has many unsuspected strands that create a webwork in which I am now enmeshed. I’ve read more obscure authors because they imitated Keeler (John Russell Fearn) or were friends of his (T. S. Stribling). I found out that my own great-grandfather, Wells Hastings, wrote a mystery novel that can fairly be described as webwork. And I taught myself some Dutch in order to read the 2010 novel De Sciencefictionschrijver, by Harold S. Karstens—a story about a man who becomes unhealthily obsessed with Harry Stephen Keeler and starts a correspondence with Richard Polt. Yes, Keeler’s world is absorbing—to the point where I have now been absorbed within the covers of a fictional exploration of that world, to be discovered, like Harry himself, by future eccentrics.

by Daniel Riccuito

[sineala]

Iron Man: And Call My Killer... MODOK!

So if you're a Marvel Comics fan of any stripe, you're probably aware that Marvel has a longtime history of publishing what they call "prose novels" and what literally any other publisher would just call "novels." You know. Books with only words in them. As opposed to "graphic novels," which is I guess why Marvel needs to make the distinction.

You're probably also aware that a lot of these prose novels are, well... bad. Some of the current ones, the original ones with new stories, have been getting good reviews -- I've heard good things about the Black Widow and Squirrel Girl books -- but a lot of them are just things like "novelizations of Civil War" and those ones are not great. (The MCU Iron Man 1 novelization was pretty good, but I would say that that was one of the few exceptions, and that only because Peter David both can actually write and has also written comic books.)

But a few weeks ago @blossomsinthemist told me that there had been a line of paperback Marvel prose novels way way back in the late seventies, and I was immediately interested for two reasons. One, if it's not novelizing an existing story arc, it's less likely to be terrible. And two, I really like late-seventies Marvel comics. So if I get to read a brand-new (to me) late-seventies story, I'm going to be pretty excited.

(If you're looking for these for yourself, prices vary, because people seem to be really into just having them for collection value, but if you don't care about condition and are patient you can get them for $5 to $10 or so.)

Anyway. I'm starting here with the Iron Man one, And Call My Killer... MODOK! It's from 1979 and is by William Rotsler, who also appears to have written the Doctor Strange novel in this series, and according to Wikipedia, he won four Hugos for Best Fan Artist, though most of his prose work appears to have been SF novelizations, and, uh, he was involved in the making of over two dozen pornographic films? Thanks, Wikipedia!

Right. Okay. The actual book. We are talking about the actual book. So the plot, as you can guess from the title, involves a lot of AIM and MODOK -- and because this is vintage 1970s Iron Man, also a lot of Happy, Pepper and SHIELD. SHIELD here is a lot of Nick Fury and a lot -- hi, again, 1970s -- of Jasper Sitwell. (If you're only familiar with the MCU, 616 Jasper Sitwell is, like, the ultimate Boy Scout SHIELD agent, a giant nerdy stickler for protocol.) Basically, AIM is scheming to get the armor, and the basic plot itself is kind of fun in that respect -- Tony scheming right back, decoy fake plans, a fake auction of the armor, and of course Tony and Happy captured by AIM. There's the requisite fight with an armored villain, of course, and what feels like a very perfunctory showdown with MODOK. (It's not a long novel.)

But since we're in fandom, we're not reading these things for the actual plot content, and so I am happy to say that on a characterization level, if this is the Tony Stark characterization you like in this era of comics, this book is going to make you happy. Because he really is, just... peak, classic Tony Stark. This is established very early on, in what is actually my favorite section of the book. Tony addresses a roomful of students about ecology, and his plans for SI and for the future, and about how he's not actually in it for the money and he just wants to do the right thing and save the world and so on and so forth and he wants to hire some of these kids to help everyone and build space colonies and so on. Similarly, when we first see Tony at SI, there's a paragraph about how he knows his employees' names and values them as people and it's very much classic Tony characterization. I love it.

In terms of canon, I'm not quite sure if this is relying on any particular recent developments in canon. Pepper and Happy are still together, and there's a throwaway line, in the list of Things That Have Happened To Tony's Heart, about how he's had several surgeries and a new heart and at this point in his life he has to wear the chestplate some of the time but not all of the time. I think that whole "weak heart" era is the Michael O'Brien/second Guardsman stuff, but I'm not exactly sure; this is not an era of canon I'm 100% up on in order. That may be a little too early for this, as well. Sorry; I'm not the best at this part of this game.

There is, of course, some identity porn, since what would an Iron Man story be without some good identity porn? There's a section early on where Tony explains why he would never reveal his secret identity. (Literally, he wishes he could "come out of the closet," and, yes, they do put that phrase in quotation marks.) His rationale is that the media would never let him alone, and also there are "Iron Man groupies, publicity seekers, and other assorted crazies" who would make his life miserable.

The weird thing is, then he goes on a date with what seems to be an Iron Man groupie. Pepper sets him up on a date with a woman who is a bellydancer and auto mechanic trying to break into acting. (The even weirder thing is that she seems to be named after a woman the author has coauthored several novels with. I, uh... I hope she knew first?) Anyway, they go on a date and she starts asking him about what Iron Man is like. Now, in a book where the plot appears to be that the bad guys want Tony's armor, I would be a little suspicious of people who were curious about Iron Man. But apparently this woman is on the level and just really likes gossip about famous people, and then at the end of the book when Tony talks about maybe going on another date he seems excited to "give her an opportunity to know Tony Stark." Although, really, she seems to still think Iron Man is cooler, so I don't see this working out well.

(Also, in the course of the plot, he does end up unmasking in front of MODOK, and as cover he comes up with the excuse that he isn't the only Iron Man and that there are a group of them. Which, y'know, historically, isn't even untrue, for a certain view of Tony's behavior -- there have actually been multiple people in the suit before now. So I kind of like Tony's quick thinking there. Amusingly, as he's bluffing his way through this, one of the fake Iron Men he names is Captain America, which honestly I think would make a hell of a fanfiction plot.)

Another weird thing: since this is right before Demon in a Bottle, Tony still drinks. It's not even an issue. And obviously it's meant to show something about his affluent lifestyle (and how he considers alcohol a necessary part of that lifestyle) but it's interesting reading this in retrospect and thinking about all the character development that Tony is basically about to undergo but hasn't yet.

So, yeah, in terms of characterization, this is an interesting look at Tony Stark basically preserved in one of the more-well-regarded eras for him, so on that basis I think it's worth reading. Which is not to say that there aren't some downsides, and since this book is mainstream fiction from the 70s, I bet you can guess what the main one is: namely, there is a certain amount of casual sexism and racism. The first scene takes place on a college campus and there is a lot of, uh, dwelling on co-eds and their short skirts. There is also a retelling of Tony's origin story, and you probably already know that ToS #39 is racist as hell (especially if you have seen non-recolored versions in which Wong Chu is literally yellow in the art) but the prose retelling here manages to add in some racist epithets (many characters are referred to as "the Oriental") which is... disappointing. Neither of these things are really unexpected for a book from 1979. But, you know, there they are. Heads up.

It also makes some weird narrative choices. One is that it has a surprising number of extended flashbacks in which dialogue is taken directly from the comics. I understand that back in the day before trade paperbacks and Marvel Unlimited and back issues whenever you want them, you the Iron Man fan might not have been aware of a lot of Tony's history. So I get why you would want to spend some time going over the events of Tales of Suspense #39. And, okay, Happy is a pretty important character in the plot, so I get why you'd want a lot about their first meeting in Tales of Suspense #45. But then there's a whole flashback devoted to the whole body-horror extravaganza of how MODOK came to be, and that one... that one was just kind of weird, especially because Tony didn't even figure into it.

And that leads me to my final complaint about weird narrative choices, which is the author has chosen to write this book in 3rd person omniscient point of view. I mean, it's a valid POV choice, sure. But it's a little jarring coming from fandom, where we are all basically 3rd limited forever and ever (like, honestly, I'm not even sure I'd know how to write 3rd omni if I tried!), and it's even weirder to read Tony in the middle of one of his inspiring speeches while a female student is thinking about how sexy he is even if he is an "older man." Yeah.

Also, the narration calls him Tony when he's out of the suit and Iron Man when he's in the suit. Consistently. Even when he's thinking about himself. I am pretty sure fandom never does this, and it is weird as hell.

So, overall, I have to say that despite some reservations, I really enjoyed this, and if this is an era of Iron Man canon that you enjoy, you will probably like this if you can get your hands on it, because it's a lot like reading an Iron Man comic from 1979, and the plot shenanigans are amusing. I mean, it's not the best-written book ever, but it is a lot of fun, especially in terms of Tony's characterization.

[claudia1829things]

"HOMEFRONT" RETROSPECT: (1.01) "S.N.A.F.U."

"HOMEFRONT" RETROSPECT: (1.01) "S.N.A.F.U." There are only a handful of television shows that I am very emotional about. There are only a handful that I consider to be among the best I have ever seen on the small screen. One of them happened to be the 1991-1993 ABC series, "HOMEFRONT". Not only do I view it as one of the few television series that turned out to be consistently first-rate from beginning to end, it also has one of the best pilot episodes I have ever seen.

"HOMEFRONT" followed the lives and experiences of a handful of citizens in the fictional town in Ohio, right after the end of World War II. In fact, its pilot episode, (1.01) "S.N.A.F.U." picks up not long after the war finally ended with Japan's surrender. Army war veterans Hank Metcalf and Charles "Charlie" Hailey are in New York City, awaiting a train to take them home to River Run, Ohio. Hank is unaware that his longtime girlfriend, Sarah Brewer, has been dating his younger brother Jeff, while he was overseas. And Charlie has an unpleasant surprise for his longtime girlfriend and fiancée, Ginger Szabo - he has married a British woman named Caroline. Other surprises loomed for some of the citizens of River Run. Hank's sister, Linda, had been dating his and Charlie's friend, Mike Sloan, before war. Yet, unbeknownst to her, he has married an Italian woman named Gina, who is also a survivor of the Holocaust. Both Linda and her mother, Anne Metcalf, employees at Sloan Industries during the war, were unceremoniously fired with other women employees to make room for returning male veterans. And the Sloans' chauffeur and housekeeper, Abe and Gloria Davis, receive a surprise in the return of their son Robert from the war. They are even further surprised by his embittered attitude toward the racism he had encountered in the Army and that a job as janitor awaits him at the Sloans' factory. I really do not know what to say about "S.N.A.F.U.". I had never paid much attention to it, when I last saw "HOMEFRONT" on TVLAND, during the summer of 2000. After my recent viewing of the episode, I cannot understand how I could have ever ignored it in the first place. Not only is "S.N.A.F.U." an outstanding episode, I now realize it is one of the best in the series. Is it the best? I have no idea. I would have to become reacquainted with the other forty-one episodes. I will say this for "S.N.A.F.U." - the screenplay written by Lynn Marie Latham and Bernard Lechowick could easily compete with the 1946 movie, "THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES" in regard to a narrative about World War II U.S. servicemen returning home. Not surprising, Latham and Lechowick's transcript won the Writers Guild of America Award for Best Original Long Form in Television. In a way, I can see why this episode strongly reminded me of "THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES". For an episode that mainly focused on the return of River Run's U.S. servicemen, it seemed filled with a good deal of bitterness, despair and a surprising tragedy. Discrimination seemed prevalent in this episode. The Metcalf women - Anne and her daughter Linda - lost their wartime jobs at the Sloan Industries because owner Michael Sloan decided women were no longer needed as employees, due to the war's end. On the other hand, the episode revealed Robert Davis' bitterness over the racism he encountered in the U.S. Army. This bitterness carried over when he discovered that the promised job at Sloan Industries turned out to be a janitor. "S.N.A.F.U." featured one interesting scene regarding both the racism and sexism faced by some of the characters. In one scene, while office manager Sam Schenkkan fires Linda, he hires Robert for the janitor job. The emotional response expressed by both Robert and Linda proved to be very interesting. Bigotry against foreigners and anti-Semitism reared its ugly head in a story line that featured the Sloans' discovery that their only son, Michael Sloan Jr., had married an Italian-Jewish woman and Holocaust survivor named Gina. Most of the episode featured the couple trying to find a way to annul their son's marriage before his return. Romance certainly proved to be a problem in "S.N.A.F.U.". Both Linda and her best friend, Ginger Szabo, expected to resume their romances with respective boyfriends upon their return from the war. Linda, who was in love with Mike Jr., learned about his marriage to Gina, upon the latter's arrival to Ohio. And Ginger, who had been engaged to her longtime boyfriend Charlie Hailey, discovered he had married a young British woman named Caroline, while stationed overseas. And Caroline, as this episode later revealed, will prove to be a handful throughout the series' run. Thwarted romance also struck another member of the Metcalf family. While Anne Metcalf's oldest offspring, Hank, was fighting in Europe during the war; his younger brother Jeff got caught up in an unexpected romance with Hank's girlfriend and fiancée, Sarah Brewer. Both Jeff and Sarah had decided she would break her engagement with Hank, so that both could declare their love for one another. However, Jeff found himself at the losing end of the lollipop when Sarah decided to remain with Hank. I have seen my share of movies about war veterans returning home. But I have never come across so much aborted romances and betrayal in one production in my life. And yet . . . Latham and Lechowick, along with the actors and actresses who portrayed these characters, made all of this romantic entanglements and betrayals seem emotionally true, instead of the usual second-rate melodrama. If I must be honest, I believe "S.N.A.F.U." is a prime example of what made "HOMEFRONT" one of the best television shows I have ever seen. Like the other 41 episodes that followed, "S.N.A.F.U." explored the post-World War II world with a skillful mixture of drama, melodrama, romance, history, comedy and some action. To be honest, no action was featured in "S.N.A.F.U.". But it did manifest in a few episodes during the series' two-year run. I also have to comment on Latham and Lechowick's exploration of racism, sexism, class and other issues in such a seamless, yet believable manner. I can only think of one or two other television shows that managed to achieve this . . . even to this day. And the more I realize this, I cannot help but wonder if most of today's television producers are incapable of dealing with more than one or two particular issues. If this is true, then "HOMEFRONT" managed to achieve something rare that may never happen again. The excellent writing featured in "S.N.A.F.U." could have come to nothing without the first-rate cast for this show. I tried to think of a performance that seemed out of place or just plain ineffective. But I could not. Everyone gave it their all, including the likes of Kyle Chandler, Tammy Lauren, Dick Anthony Williams, David Newsome, Ken Jenkins, Harry O'Reilly and Hattie Winston. But there were a handful of performances that especially impressed me. I once read that when A.B.C. eventually cancelled "HOMEFRONT" after two seasons, Mimi Kennedy had broke into tears in the privacy of her dressing room. If this is true, I can understand why. I think that the role of Ruth Sloan, the haughty and blunt-speaking wife of industrialist Michael Sloan Sr. may have been the best in her career. I have always been amazed at how she conveyed both the unpleasant and sympathetic aspects of Ruth. I also enjoyed Sterling Macer's performance as the embittered Robert Davis - especially in this episode. There is one scene in which the returning veteran is being welcomed home by his happy mother, grandmother and their friends, while he sits at the kitchen table trying . . . and failing to share their happiness. With very few words and his eyes, Macer skillfully conveyed Robert's unhappy memories of the Army and his eventual inability to share his family's happiness over his return. Another performance that caught my attention came from Jessica Steen, who portrayed Linda Metcalf - middle child and only daughter of Anne Metcalf. Looking back on it, I believe Steen had a difficult job in this episode. Her emotions seemed to be all over the place, due to what she had experienced in "S.N.A.F.U." - brother Hank's return, anticipating Mike Sloan Jr.'s return, discovering Mike's marriage to an Italian war refugee, dealing with best friend Ginger Szabo's anger over Charlie Bailey and losing her job. And yet . . . she kept it all together with some first-rate acting skills. I was impressed by one last performance and it came from Sammi Davis (1987's "HOPE AND GLORY") as Charlie Bailey's war bride, Caroline Bailey. Caroline has never been a popular character with the show's fans. Many found her selfish and manipulative. I had also felt the same. But . . . I also recalled that Caroline was such an interesting character, thanks to Davis' excellent performance. And at times, I also found her likable. I certainly found her very likable in "S.N.A.F.U.". The scheming manipulator revealed her claws in her effort to regain the down payment Charlie had given to a landlord, who welshed on them and I cheered. I also understood her anger and confusion from Ginger's hostile attitude toward her, especially since she obviously had no idea why Ginger was being rude. What else can I say about "S.N.A.F.U."? That it was a superb premiere for a first-rate series like "HOMEFRONT"? I have noticed that most television shows with excellent pilot episodes tend to go downhill by the end of the first season or the beginning of the second. Fortunately, this never happened with "HOMEFRONT". Like "S.N.A.F.U.", it remained an excellent piece of television entertainment throughout its two-year run. And it is a damn pity that the entire series has not been released on DVD.

[hollenius]

re neurodivergent headcanons in Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul, I think the first time (a year or so ago) I read something where someone online suggested Chuck was somewhere on the autism spectrum (high functioning/Aspergers), I laughed it off as a ridiculous suggestion, because he didn’t “fit” many of the stereotypical traits seen in other fictional characters or in the popular conception of the topic…but in retrospect, I think that came more from my misunderstanding of the “spectrum” part of it than anything else. It’s definitely a plausible/possible diagnosis comorbid with the anxiety disorder(s) he canonically has.

·         We know Chuck’s a good actor (e.g. his ability to fool Jimmy in “Klick”) and is able to mimic and slip into different sorts of social behaviors (e.g. his ability to social climb from a working class or lower-middle-class family to the world of white shoe law firms), so he’s probably capable of using masking in most public settings. This is apparently a more common trait in autistic women, but men do it as well, if less frequently.

·         Studies asking about the long-term effects of masking seem to imply it takes a physical/emotional/mental toll on the person using it, which might explain why, by the time we see him in BCS, the stress of acting “normal” in meetings and the like, when compounded with the worsening of his anxiety problems, leaves him curled up under a space blanket for hours or even days afterward. Trying to compensate for multiple issues at once is probably even more taxing.

·         He seems prone to getting overwhelmed by things and either shutting down or lashing out in reaction. The most extreme form of the former is when he goes catatonic for hours/days in response to being tazed or put in the CAT scan machine; the most extreme form of the latter is probably him completely losing it and shouting/crying/having to be physically restrained by the hospital staff because he’s so upset about being surrounded by lights/hooked up to an EKG/being recommended for a CAT scan.

·         Contrary to stereotypes, Chuck is decent at reading people (or at least he’s extremely good at reading his brother and knowing how he behaves) and he interacts well with people within a work context, but he doesn’t seem to have any friends outside of it, or much in the way of a social life–the other lawyers hold him in awe as a sort of glorified animate law encyclopedia, rather than someone they would want to hang out with or chat with informally. (Though Chuck doesn’t come across as the sort who would be interested in chit chat with coworkers anyway...) Being totally housebound and cut off from the outside world is upsetting to Chuck primarily because it interferes with his work as a lawyer–we never get the sense that he’s upset about it having any effect on his interpersonal relationships, because he doesn’t seem to have any. This is probably why losing Rebecca hit him so hard. He’s got almost nobody else, besides Jimmy and Howard, and he’s really not emotionally open and unguarded with anyone.

·         He’s got problems dealing with his emotions in general. Even when he’s trying to do his little pain/emotion/medication journal as part of his psychiatric treatment towards the end of season 3, he seems to struggle with articulating his emotional state–he’s just got “average” written down for most of the incidents he’s logged, but he’s not able to write down what his emotion is after he’s unable to sleep after insulting/lying to Jimmy to drive him away for the final time, and he seems to abandon writing in the journal after that & rapidly deteriorates psychologically. From what we see of him in the show, he seems to alternate between being extremely repressed and completely exploding and freaking out.

·         Some people have no interest in having or wanting friends, but I don’t think Chuck’s one of them. He seems pretty lonely. He remarks to Jimmy at one point in season 1 that he doesn’t really mind him hanging around to work on the Sandpiper case in his house because he’s glad for the company, which makes his systematic driving away of Jimmy and the few other people in his life all the sadder. The whole root of Chuck’s jealousy of Jimmy in the first place is that people like Jimmy, and they don’t like him. He makes attempts at being friendly, but struggles to do it on anything deeper than a surface level. (Of course, a lot of Jimmy’s friendliness and charm tends to be pretty shallow too, but I don’t know that Chuck really appreciates that or can tell the difference–all he sees are the results.)

·         He’s tone-deaf with jokes–he famously botches the attempt at a lawyer joke to his wife in the opening flashback in “Rebecca”, but he also makes an awkward attempt at humor when talking to Kim in a present-day scene later in that same episode (“the early bird gets the worm, which is good if you like worms”), which leads to some uncomfortable forced laughter from her. Some people are just serious by nature, but they probably wouldn’t bother trying to make jokes in the first place if that were the case. The fact that Chuck keeps trying to make jokes and failing suggests that there might be some impairment in that area. He sees Jimmy do it, and he sees it work for him, but can’t really manage it himself. (He seems to do ok with deadpan sarcasm though–that comment about young people loving local print journalism is probably my favorite Chuck quote.)

·         He’s very verbal and articulate, but his speech patterns can be a bit odd. He can be indirect and overly formal, which may or may not be an overcompensation for the more stereotypical autistic behavior of being too direct in speech as to be insensitive. He usually winds up still coming off as elitist and assholish anyway, though he may not be intending this/aware of this. When he’s nervous or upset, he tends to devolve into talking at people rather than to them, such as when he starts rambling on about probable cause and assorted legal precedents to the police officers who show up at his house in “Alpine Shepherd Boy”, without noticing that they aren’t even standing at the door anymore. He’s got a lot of information rattling around in his head, which he throws out as a defense, but not always in a way that is helpful; I don’t think talking about Latin translations of the Hippocratic Oath to the doctors sedating him without his consent before sending him in for a CAT scan is doing him any good (NB: the actual Hippocratic Oath is in Greek anyway, and the phrase Primum non nocere dates from a later period, so either Chuck has no idea what he’s talking about, he’s conflating two related things, or he’s freaking out enough that he doesn’t really care at this point).

·         He seems to ignore other people when they’re talking to him altogether if something sets him off or distracts him–when Howard tells him about Kim quitting HHM and teaming up with Jimmy, Chuck immediately tunes him out, to the point where Howard has to ask him if he’s still listening. Chuck says he is, but then walks off in the middle of Howard talking because he’s still distracted by what he said before, sending a confused/concerned Howard following after him. This is at its most extreme when he goes into his rant in “Chicanery” and is totally oblivious to both Galley pleading with him to stop and everybody else in the room staring at him in growing horror/disbelief until he’s far past the point of no return.

·         I’m actually sort of curious about Chuck’s abilities in court prior to the visible deterioration of his mental health, because although he clearly knows a lot about the law, his personality is a bit off-putting. I don’t know if he just sort of brute-forced his way through things because of his knowledge of obscure case law, because based on what I know from the lawyers I’m friends with, there are all sorts of subjective factors that can come into play in a court setting. The sort of things that would drive someone like Chuck nuts, like jurors who deliberately choose to ignore evidence because they’ve decided in advance that they don’t want to convict someone of a crime. (To be fair, this would also drive me completely insane, because I have a really hard time at my own job dealing with people who think the rules shouldn’t apply to them for various reasons.)

·         Chuck has an EXTREMELY black and white view of the world, and a sort of obsession with the authority of law and the importance of following the rules. He’s got really strong perfectionist tendencies within himself. I think a lot of why he gravitates toward the law is that he seems to find all the rules and procedures comforting, in a way--there’s a uniformity to the way the legal world works, and a framework in which everything proceeds--constraints which are equally binding on all participants.

·         Maybe he just knows a ton about the law because he’s a lawyer, but it might also fall into the case of it being a special interest, since his knowledge of obscure case law seems to be regarded as extensive and superlative even by other lawyers. (He reads FEC and ISO reports for fun!)

·         There’s something slightly elliptical about his thinking, and he doesn’t seem to realize that other people aren’t following his thought patterns. (He repeats his “One after Magna Carta!” justification for knowing the Mesa Verde address to Kim and Jimmy  in season 2 as well as to the officials from the Bar in season 3, which seems to suggest that he thinks it is a very obvious and logical connection that other people should grasp, though I’m not sure that it actually is outside of his head.)

·         I’m not entirely sure where the line between nervous tics and stimming is drawn, but he’s got a lot of little fidgety behaviors that come out especially when he’s stressed, especially scratching or shaking or wringing his hands. (The script to “Chicanery” indicates that he’s nearly drawing blood from digging into his hands while on his big rant, but it’s not visible onscreen because we’ve got that wonderful/agonizing slow zoom onto his face instead.) It's not clear if it predates the EHS or not. Sometimes there’s a clear tie in his behavior to perceived pain from electricity, but sometimes there’s not--sometimes it seems to result from him trying to distract himself from the electricity instead, like when he’s trying to stand outside the house for two minutes in “Bingo”. Sometimes he does it while he’s standing around in his house, thinking about something else, like while rehearsing arguments against Jimmy before he heads in to court in “Chicanery”.

·         There’s a pretty strong preference for routine/predictability & distress when it’s altered. (Most people probably would not get so suspicious if a single newspaper wasn’t delivered one day, for example. If it was repeated or frequent or a pattern, yes, but not for a single paper.) His control issues are brought up pretty frequently in fandom discussions; maybe he’s a jerk, maybe he’s just not able to function well in unpredictable situations, maybe it’s a little of both (e.g. Chuck being really bothered by Ernie bringing him the wrong kind of apples, then saying that it didn’t really bother him that much...but then telling Ernie to write it down so that he would get the right apple the next time, indicating that he actually WAS bothered by it)

·         It’s possible his perceived sensitivity to electricity grew out of an existing natural sensitivity or aversion to extremes in light or sound or anything else, but this is pure conjecture because we get so few flashback scenes. (Speaking only from personal experience, I don’t think I’m hurt by electricity, but I can hear lights when they’re turned on, and get uncomfortable/anxious under certain types of light, like fluorescents in big box stores when out shopping, so maybe someone who’s more sensitive to sensory things in general might be more prone to developing a sort of learned distress out of that.)

All of this is very inconclusive! But it’s totally plausible as a reading of the character.

[romanticsuspense]

Outlander Season 4

Some Musings and a Plea to Stop the Hate

Way back in 2014, it seems like ages ago now, I kept seeing ads on goodreads for a new show, based on a series of books, called Outlander.  Intrigued by the gorgeous promo art, I googled it to learn more.  Lo and behold, the first episode was available to watch for free on Starz’ website!  I watched ‘Sassenach,’ then immediately bought the book.  I couldn’t wait for the rest of the show to premiere, I had to read the story now.  By the time episode 8 aired, I had finished reading the first four books.

I may have been pulled into the Outlander-verse because of Jamie and Claire, but I have stayed for Roger and Brianna.  At the time I read it, Drums of Autumn was the first book in a very long time that I found so engrossing I stayed up very late to read because I just could not put it down (one more chapter...).  I had to know if Roger would find Brianna in the past. And after they fought and were separated, whether they’d ever get back to each other.  I fell in love with Roger and Brianna in Drums of Autumn, as separate characters and as a couple.  So, I’ve been patiently waiting for four years to finally see this book brought to life on screen.  Now that Season 4 is over, I wanted to reflect on what I loved and didn’t love about this season.

“I don’t belong here,” I said softly. “Brianna, Roger … they don’t belong here. […] But we are here, all of us. And we’re here because I loved you, more than the life that was mine. Because I believed you loved me the same way.”—A Breath of Snow and Ashes

Drums of Autumn, the book on which this season was based, is really a turning point in the Outlander story.  Gabaldon has always masterfully crossed the boundaries of genre, blending romance, historical fiction, and magical realism into all of her books.  Outlander, Dragonfly in Amber, and Voyager were all epic adventure romances.   Family Saga can be added to the list with Drums of Autumn. Jamie and Claire finally have a place to settle with their family.  As Jamie and Claire get settled into their new life on Fraser’s Ridge, their family grows—Fergus, Marsali, Germain, Murtagh, Jocasta, Ian, Lizzie, and most importantly, Brianna and Roger.  As Jamie and Claire’s family grows, the Outlander story expands to accommodate these new characters.  Jamie and Claire are no longer alone.  The people that they have surrounded themselves with need them.  The story shifts focus from Jamie and Claire’s undying love for each other to Jamie and Claire doing everything in their power to protect and cherish the family around them.  In Drums, there are no real threats to Jamie and Claire’s relationship. They’re solid.  Instead, the story’s conflict revolves around their daughter, Brianna, and the man their daughter loves, Roger.  Drums is Brianna and Roger’s crucible.  They both endure terrible hardships and come out the other end surer of themselves and who they are at their very cores.

I loved Season 4 just as much, if not more, than Season 1.  There are several episodes that I will re-watch over and over again, which is not something I could say about most episodes in Seasons 2-3.  I loved, and would re-watch, ALL of the episodes in Season 4 except ‘America the Beautiful’ (too boring), ‘Do No Harm’ (too emotionally taxing) and ‘Common Ground’ (too boring).  Once I got over my disappointments with ‘The False Bride’ and ‘Down the Rabbit Hole’ (which I will get to in just a second), I was fully engrossed in this season and eagerly waiting for each new episode to be added on Saturday night.  

So, I thought the show did a decent job of adapting Drums of Autumn for the screen.  There were missteps and some odd writing choices along the way. ��But, in retrospect, I see why they made the changes they did and I understand the overall character arcs.  That being said, I still want to discuss two of the biggest disappointments for me this season.  These changes had the biggest negative impact on my own perception of the season.  My view of the season as a whole, though, is very positive.

“…he thought perhaps it didn’t matter that they faced in opposite directions—so long as they faced each other.”

By far my greatest letdown of this season was how Roger and Brianna’s relationship was condensed and written, particularly in ‘The False Bride.’  We haven’t seen these characters since Episode 5 of Season 3, ‘Freedom and Whiskey’, which aired more than a year before ‘The False Bride.’

“Drums of Autumn, the novel that corresponds to this season, is the book where Roger and Brianna become main characters. It would make sense to tell their stories in a parallel manner to that of Claire and Jamie, echoing the back-and-forth from the 18th to the 20th centuries that made the first half of season 3 so memorable.” (Source: TV Kills Time)

If not a back-and-forth, then I think there should have been at least one more early episode in which they were heavily featured so that their relationship could develop in a believable way and the audience could become invested in them as a couple.  I think ‘America the Beautiful’ was slow enough that they could have easily included Roger and Brianna, and doing so would have established that these two are major characters in Season 4.  Or they could have been featured in ‘Do No Harm’ to give viewers a bit of a break from the heavy emotional stuff Jamie and Claire were going through in that episode.  If I had done the story outline for their relationship this season my two early Roger and Brianna episodes would look like this...

Episode 1: Roger and Brianna awkwardly reconnect after the events of Season 3.  They’re shy around each other at first, but by the end of the episode it’s obvious something serious is developing between them.  They decide to give a long distance relationship a shot.  (Possible book story to include: Roger and Brianna go to the Scottish Festival, Roger meets Joe Abernathy)

To indicate time has passed and they’re in a serious long-distance relationship—either at the end of Episode 1 or the beginning of Episode 2—there’s a montage of them picking each other up at the airport to visit each other, writing letters, and talking on the phone.

Episode 2: Since Roger visited Brianna in America in Episode 1 (and in ‘Freedom and Whiskey’—seriously, who shows up uninvited at Christmas?), Brianna needs to visit Roger in Scotland, so it doesn’t look so much like Roger is pursuing Brianna.  By this point, they’ve established this is a serious relationship, so a proposal from Roger wouldn’t seem so ridiculous.  Even though Brianna rejects his proposal, they part on good terms—Roger understanding that Brianna isn’t ready, and Brianna understanding that Roger is committed.  (Possible book story to include: Brianna visits Roger at Christmas, hallway makeout session, romantic walk after Christmas Mass, proposal)

The fight at the end of ‘The False Bride’ was incredibly frustrating because I knew that they would be fighting again in ‘Wilmington,’ and the way the fight unfolded came across way too adversarial.  I never interpreted Roger and Brianna as clashing in the books.  I always thought of them as young, inexperienced, and prone to miscommunication because Roger is so forthcoming, while Brianna is very guarded.  They should have ended ‘The False Bride’ on a more optimistic, hopeful note.   Considering that Roger and Brianna both endure so much hardship in the second half of the season, did they really need to add fuel to that fire?  No.  Writing the fight the way they did had ramifications for the rest of the season—from their handfasting not being believable in ‘Wilmington,’ to viewers questioning why we should be rooting for them to be together, to people not caring about, or even hating, Roger.

I’ve written about my disappointments with regards to Roger and Roger and Brianna before, so I’m not going to rehash all that here.  But, if you’re interested in reading more of my thoughts on the matter, check out this post and this thread. 

All that being said, I genuinely loved the Roger and Brianna story line from the handfasting forward. I didn’t even mind how the fight was written at the end of ‘Wilmington.’ (He left because she told him to go people!)  I just wish that ‘The False Bride’ had ended differently, so this corner of the Roger/Bree fandom was a bit larger.

“She had set out thinking only to find her father; she hadn’t realized that she might discover a whole new family in the process.”

My second biggest disappointment this season was the writer’s decision to cut Brianna at Lallybroch.  I understand what the writers were intending in ‘Down the Rabbit Hole’—to draw parallels between Frank/Claire and Laoghaire/Jamie.  I still believe this is a really weak connection to make, and not in the spirit of what Brianna is going through at this point in the book (transitioning from Randall to Fraser and bonding with her Scottish family).  I loved all the Frank/Brianna flashbacks, I just thought they felt out of place in this episode.  It would have been better to include all the Frank scenes in ‘Blood of my Blood’ and juxtapose Frank/Brianna with John/Willie.  Frank and John raised Jamie’s children.  That’s a motif worth exploring, and a much stronger parallel than Frank and Laoghaire.  That way, Brianna’s already processed her complicated feelings about Frank by the time she arrives in Scotland, and she’s ready to meet Jamie.  By the end of ‘Down the Rabbit Hole,’ viewers should have been excited and on the edge of their seats anticipating Jamie and Brianna’s eventual meeting.  Instead, most viewers were confused about why we just watched an episode focused on Outlander’s two most polarizing characters: Laoghaire and Frank.

In my opinion, the Laoghaire drama just completely overshadowed the episode, and Roger’s scenes in particular.  This is supposed to be a moment of growth for Roger, who is demonstrating great moral character by standing up to Stephen Bonnet and risking his own life to protect Morag and baby Jemmy.  This episode could have changed viewers minds about Roger, but it didn’t.  And I wish there had been at least one scene of Roger doing something, anything, more strenuous than hanging a lantern.  Oh, and don’t even get me started on that fucking beanie.  So, yeah, ‘Down the Rabbit Hole’ was not my favorite episode, even though I thought I would love it because...Roger and Brianna!  

If you’re interested in reading any more of my episode thoughts, here are some links:

Down the Rabbit Hole (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3); Wilmington; The Birds and the Bees; and Man of Worth.

So, I had my disappointments with the show this season. But far more disappointing than anything the show writers ever did was the critic’s and fan’s reactions to this season.  I have never in my life read so much hate directed towards a TV show.  Reading some of the vitriol online, you’d think the show was a complete garbage fire and everyone involved in its production moronic, selfish bastards who are conspiratorially creating a garbage show to troll fans.  So I ask...

Is this show GOOD?  And who decides if it’s GOOD, anyway?

Outlander has never been, nor will it ever be, the best show on TV.  It has never been, nor will it ever be, a critically acclaimed masterpiece worthy of awards and accolades.  Of course, the actors are amazing, the costumes are superb, and the set design can be well done, and it’s one of my personal favorite shows.  But this is just not the type of show with mass appeal or the type of show to garner praise from critics (who aren’t necessarily fans) who are paid to analyze the show and determine if it’s “good.”  What they deem “good” TV is not necessarily what I, or you, would deem “good” TV.  It’s just too subjective.  Anyway, the source material the show is adapted from is weird, meandering, melodramatic and sometimes boring.  It’s inevitable that some of those qualities will seep into the TV show.  I don’t enjoy every chapter of the books, and I don’t enjoy every episode of the TV show.  I don’t expect to.  And I don’t expect critics, especially critics who haven’t read the books, to enjoy the show, either.  Just because someone writes reviews for the New York Times, doesn’t mean they are the ultimate authority on what’s good or worth watching.  I have read much more thoughtful and meaningful analyses of the show here on Tumblr than on more well-known outlets, whether major news sites or fan-run sites like That’s Normal.  Shout out to Connie at TV Kills Time, whose “Deep Thoughts” on Outlander are always perfectly balanced and eloquently written.  

The show had a lot of buzz in its first season, Caitriona’s been nominated for Golden Globes, and I think the costumes have received or been nominated for awards as well.  And that’s great.  I love when a show I love gets recognition.  But, I don’t think a critic, or an awards panel, can tell me what TV shows I should love.  Plus, these critics are tasked with reviewing the show after every single episode, without the full context of the entire story arc of the season.  I think this media culture of reviewing each episode of a TV show has changed how we watch television.  Each episode is dissected and analyzed to pieces as if it’s a movie, with the expectation being that each episode stand alone as a terrific work of fiction with its own narrative arc.  Which is nearly impossible to achieve with any show, but especially with a show like Outlander, because there are just so many characters and so much plot to cram into 13 distinct episodes.  Don’t get me wrong.  I want each episode to be good on its own.  But, I also understand that the episode has to fit within the season as a whole.  And I don’t expect each episode to thrill me and delight me.

Moving on to the fandom…    

Why are you watching this show?  Seriously, why?

The Frank hate that exploded in Season 1, particularly around ‘Both Sides Now’ was my first negative experience in the Outlander fandom.  I still remember how shocked I was to read (in this post): “Frank was a low key asshole at first, but then just becomes a full blown prick further along in the series.” I had never read such harsh criticisms of a fictional character who wasn’t a villain.  I had always viewed Frank as a pretty benign character and frankly (pun intended) I was confused.  I thought, “People hate Frank?  Why?  He’s such a tragic character!” I quickly came to his defense in that thread.  I hadn’t even read Drums of Autumn yet when I wrote that, but reading the post again, I still stand by everything I said.  This was the first time I thought it might be better to enjoy this book series and TV show alone in my own little world.  I decided to take a step back and stop reading other’s opinions on the internet.  I kept watching the show, but stopped blogging about it.  You won’t find much on my blog from Outlander Seasons 2 or 3.  I was watching it, but I wasn’t super engaged in the show anymore.  Two to three weeks would go by before I remembered that I had episodes of Outlander to catch up on.  I got excited again when Roger and Brianna’s episodes premiered.  But I had to take another step back when the Sophie Skelton hate started.  I still considered myself a fan of the show, I just wasn’t part of the fandom, anymore.

Fast forward to August 2018.  I hadn’t picked up an Outlander book since finishing The Fiery Cross in November 2015.  That’s nearly three years!  I decided to reread Drums of Autumn before Season 4.  Even reading it a second time around, when I knew Brianna and Roger would be reunited, I couldn’t put it down.  My fervor for Outlander was renewed.  I was excited about Season 4.  

Then ‘The False Bride’ aired and the Roger hate began. It hurt to hear a character, who I admire for his capacity to love deeply and determination to do what is right, being called an asshole, a historical douche (whatever that means?), a whiny butt, a misogynist, or abusive.  So, as a kind of catharsis, I wrote about Roger.  And I tried, as best I could, to filter out the hate, or sometimes even laugh at it.  And, thankfully, by writing that post, I found lots of positive fans who love Roger and Brianna just as much as I do.  And before I knew it, I was neck deep in the Outlander fandom again.  And I was having fun.  

But, after the all of the uproar about Roger in ‘The False Bride’ died down, then came ‘Down the Rabbit Hole’ and gasp! Jamie and Claire weren’t in the episode at all!  Then Roger and Brianna got naked in ‘Wilmington’ and fans got in an uproar yet again.  How dare they get a sex scene racier than anything Jamie and Claire have done all season! How dare they try to mirror Jamie and Claire’s wedding episode!  How dare a grown man have body hair!  And with every new episode, the complaints and hate just kept rolling in...Brianna doesn’t deserve Jamie as a father!  Frank is the worst, why does Brianna even love him!  Claire and Jamie don’t have any chemistry anymore!  Roger deserved the beating he got from Jamie!  The writers are destroying Jamie and Claire! Caitriona is phoning it in this season! Sophie Skelton is a terrible actress! Roger should go back through the stones or just die already!  Jamie and Claire are no longer the heart of the show!  Roger and Brianna are gross!

I still am just so baffled by how much hate is in this fandom.  It shouldn’t come as a surprise by now, but it does.  I understand not liking a character and I understand that everyone has their own personal favorite characters.  But, why do I see more hate directed towards Frank Randall and Roger Mackenzie, than I do for Black Jack Randall and Stephen Bonnet?  Why did I read more disgust about Roger and Brianna’s sex scene in ‘Wilmington’ than about Brianna getting raped?  Why do Jamie & Claire fans feel the need to denigrate Roger & Brianna because they’re angry about how their favorite couple is being portrayed on screen?  Why are these people even watching this show anymore?  

I’m not saying your only two choices here are (1) love the show unconditionally and find no fault with it ever, or (2) stop watching the show altogether.  (I just spent a good part of this post criticizing two of the show’s episodes.)  I believe we can enjoy fiction and still acknowledge its flaws.  I believe we can be critical without being hateful.  And I believe we can express disappointment in how some characters are portrayed without tearing down other characters or tearing down fans who don’t hold the same opinion as you do.  If you are disappointed, please write about it, if it helps you process your disappointment.  But don’t just say “Roger is the worst and I hope he dies.”  Tell me why you think that.  Let’s talk about it.  I like to debate story lines or character’s actions.  But, it’s hard to have meaningful discourse (especially in the comments section) if you’re not willing to take the time to explain your side or you resort to ad hominem arguments.

I’m going to take a little segue here and talk a little bit about the last fandom that I was involved in.  A few years ago, I became deeply obsessed with The Walking Dead. If you scroll through my archive here, I’m sure you would be able to pinpoint my TWD phase.  TWD, like Outlander, is an adaptation—it’s based on a series of graphic novels.  Like any adaption, the show writers make changes.  Characters who are dead in the graphic novels are alive on the show or vice versa.  Relationships that exist on the show, don’t exist in the graphic novels.  Now, I never read the graphic novels, so these changes never bothered me.  But, within the fandom, there was a lot of discontent around certain character deaths and relationships.  And even though I tried to avoid spoilers, there were plenty of fans that were excited about upcoming story lines or new characters and would talk non-stop about what they hoped to see on the show in the future.  During Season 6, there was a lot of hype within the fandom about a new villain coming: Negan.  Negan is one of those ‘charming’ villains who talks a lot and people love him.  They don’t love to hate him.  They just love him.  Negan finally made his appearance in the finale of Season 6.  After hearing about the extremely violent deaths of two beloved characters at the hands of Negan, I could never bring myself to watch the episode.  I was fed up with the toxic fandom (though TWD has nothing on the Outlander fandom), I was fed up with fans glorifying a villain, and I did not like the direction the show was going.  So, I stopped watching.  It felt hard at the time, to give up on a show that had previously brought me so much joy.  But, when the show no longer brought me joy, I just stopped watching.

I tell you about my experience with TWD, because I just do not understand why some of you are still watching Outlander.  I really, really don’t.  If, after every episode, you can’t find even one nice thing to say about the story or the characters, then why are you still watching?  If you’re so disappointed in the writers because you think they’ve annihilated or don’t get your favorite characters, then why are you still watching?  If you think the actors don’t have chemistry anymore or are just plain terrible actors, then why are you still watching?  If you’re fed up with the adaptive choices the writers are making, then why are you still watching?  If the show no longer brings you joy, then why are you still watching?

I may not watch TWD anymore, but I still follow a bunch of TWD blogs so I can keep up with the story and my favorite characters (the ones who aren’t dead), but at a distance.  And now that some time has passed, I actually think I may be ready to start watching the show again.  So, even if you’re not ready to give up on Outlander entirely, maybe it’s best to at least consider taking a break.  Stop watching…for a while.  Let those of us who are enjoying the show, enjoy it without being inundated with negativity and hate.  

Entitlement

“They need to include this”... “They can’t cut that”... “They better not mess this up” ... “We deserve to see this”... Reading assertions like these (I’m guilty of this as well, so I’m calling myself out here, too) brings to mind an interview I read this year with a woman who knew she would die of cancer at the age of 35:

“When we feel like we’re deprived of something we’re supposed to have, something we’ve decided we’re supposed to have because we think others have it, that’s when things tend to become “serious.” Life is too serious to take seriously. […] What makes us change is when something is taken away from us that we feel entitled to. Our bodies are rented. This day is rented. Nothing will stay. And if we live from a mindset of “I am entitled to this,” “I deserve this,” at some point we get stuck trying to hold onto something that is not ours, that is no longer there, and have to change.”

If you are still stuck in an entitlement mindset, I beg you to consider change.  It’s not healthy to constantly be stewing in feelings of disappointment and anger over not getting what you want because you think you deserve it.  It’s time to move into a new mindset.  Here is a harsh truth: You cannot change the show.  No matter how much you attack the producers, writers and actors on Twitter or how many malicious comments you leave on other people’s Tumblr posts.  Calling Roger a “whiny butt” isn’t going to change anything.  Coming onto someone else’s positive post about the show to burst their bubble isn’t going to change anything.  Body shaming Richard Rankin for having chest hair isn’t going to change anything.  But, what you are fully capable of doing is changing yourself.  You can change your mindset.  You can abandon the world of disappointment and entitlement and join me as I strive towards acceptance and gratitude.

If you find yourself saying “I need” or “I demand” rather than “I wish” or “I hope,” you’re heading in the wrong direction. We all hope that our favorite characters are written well.  We all hope to see our favorite scenes from the book on screen.  But we are not owed these things.  The only thing we are entitled to, as human beings, is kindness. Be kind to yourself, and be kind to others.

Thank You

I want to thank everyone who started following me during this season of Outlander.  I’m grateful to each and every one of you. You’ve made watching this season of Outlander even more joyful for me.  I know my blog has been 99% Roger and Brianna these last couple of months.  So, I feel like I have to warn you that my blog is not Outlander exclusive, and at some point during Droughtlander it’s likely I will get hooked on a new show and start posting a bunch of stuff not Outlander related (I’ve been itching to re-watch The Americans…).  I hope you’ll continue to follow me, but if you don’t want to, that’s fine too!  You do you.

I’m not sure how active I will be on Tumblr during Droughtlander.  I still have a post on Rogergate coming, and I might be posting a few more edits. But, I’m taking the PE exam in the spring, and I need to buckle down and study for that and stop watching so much TV!  As much as I loved being so involved in a fandom again, I think I need a little break.  So, I might be taking a Tumblr hiatus, but I’m not sure for how long. We’ll see.

One of my ‘Reading Resolutions’ for this year was to write reviews for all of the books I read.  I am currently reading A Breath of Snow and Ashes, and plan to get to An Echo in the Bone sometime this year as well.  So, even if I’m not around Tumblr much this year, you can find me on goodreads—send me a friend request!

I love you guys!  I wish you all a peaceful Droughtlander.

[rainycloudh-blog]

Dictionary of literary terms (A-U)

A

Alliteration:

The repetition of sounds at the beginning of words. It is what gives many a tongue twister its twist: How can a clam cram in a clean cream can.

Allusion:

An (in)direct reference to another text, e.g. the Bible

Anaphora:

The repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive clauses.

Antagonist:

An antagonist is the opponent to the protagonist/main character.

Antithesis:

A rhetorical or literary device in which an opposition or contrast of ideas is expressed.

B 

Bias:

A prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.

Broadsheet:

A newspaper with a large format, traditionally regarded as more serious and less sensationalist than tabloids.

Byline:

A line at the top of an article giving the writer's name.

C 

Caption:

A text that accompanies a photograph or illustration.

Character:

Character is the term used about the persons in a work of fiction. We distinguish between main characters (see below) and minor characters. In contrast to the main characters, who may be round and dynamic, the minor characters tend to be rather flat: they do not change or develop.

Chorus:

Part of a song that is repeated after each verse (= refrain in poetry)

Cliché:

A cliché is an idea or phrase that has been used so much that it does not have any meaning any more.

Climax:

The climax is the moment at which the conflict comes to its point of greatest intensity and is resolved. It is also the peak of emotional response from the reader.

Column:

a. A regular article on a particular subject or by a particular writer.

b. A vertical division of a page or a text.

Composition

Composition is the term used about the structure or organization of the events in a story – the elements of a text. A typical composition gives the events in chronological order, maybe with a flashback or two.

D 

Dialogue:

Dialogue is a conversation between two or more characters in a piece of literature. It can be written as direct speech (with quotation marks and “he said”) or the conversation can be presented as indirect speech (reported speech), not using the exact words used by the characters.

E 

Editorial:

A newspaper article expressing the editor's opinion on a topical issue.

Ellipsis:

Ellipsis is the term used when there is a significant jump in time to a later point in the story. The word refers to the fact that something has been left out.

Essay:

An essay is a composition giving the writer’s personal thoughts on or opinion of a particular subject or theme.

Ethos:

A form of appeal based on the speaker's character (e.g. reliability).

Exposition:

Exposition is a narrative technique that provides some background and informs the reader about the plot, character, setting, and theme of a story. In classical short stories, the exposition will be placed in the opening, but in modern short stories it may be placed anywhere – or even left out.

F 

Figurative language:

Figurative language is often associated with poetry, but it actually appears quite often in prose as well. It describes things through metaphors and other figures of speech.

First-person narrator:

The first-person narrator uses an “I”, takes part in the story but has no direct access to the thoughts and feelings of the other characters. Be aware that the “I” can only see things from his/her own point of view, and this also limits the reader to that one perspective – can he/she be trusted? (See unreliable narrator.)

Flashback: Flashback is an entire scene which leaves the chronological narration for a while and jumps back in time from the point which the story has reached. The purpose of a flashback is to provide background for present events.

Flashforward:

Flashforward is an entire scene which leaves the chronological narration for a while and jumps forward in time from the point the story has reached. The opposite of flashback.

Foreshadowing:

Foreshadowing is hints or clues in a story that suggest what will happen later. Some authors use foreshadowing to create suspense or to convey information that helps readers understand what comes later.

Formal language:

Formal language is a style of writing that often uses fairly complex sentences and neutral, sometimes technical, words that tend to be more difficult/abstract than common everyday words. Formal language is often used in official public notices, business situations, and polite conversations with strangers.

G 

Genre:

We say a poem, novel, short story, fairy tale, etc. belongs to a particular genre if it shares at least a few characteristics with other works in that genre.

H 

Hero:

The hero is the central character around whom the events revolve and with whom the audience is intended to identify. If the hero is female, we may use the term heroine. If the hero (or heroine) has an opponent, the villain would often be the preferred term for him (or her). If the hero behaves in an unheroic way, we could talk about an anti-hero.

I 

Informal language:

Informal language is a style of writing that uses everyday (spoken) language. It usually uses simple sentences and everyday words, sometimes slang and/or dialect.

Imagery:

Imagery is the use of vivid description, usually rich in words that appeal to the senses, to create pictures, or images, in the reader's mind.

In medias res:

In medias res is the term used when a story does not begin at the beginning, introducing the setting, the characters or the context of events, but instead opens “in the middle of things” (this is what the term means in Latin).

In retrospect:

Most stories are told in the past tense, thus indicating that they describe past events. But some stories - especially first-person narratives - make this much clearer than others, probably to remind the reader that the narrator is no longer the same; he or she is now older, maybe even wiser. The reader also understands, of course, that the events still mean something to the narrator. A story like this is told in retrospect, we say.

Interior monologue:

The written representation of a character's inner thoughts, impressions and memories as if the reader "overhears" them directly without the intervention of a narrator or another selecting and organizing mind.

Inverted pyramid:

The metaphor used in journalism to illustrate the placing of the most important information first.

L 

Limited point of view:

A narrator with a limited point of view knows only the thoughts and feelings of a single character, while other characters are presented only from the outside. This is also called a restricted point of view.

Logos:

Appealing to the receiver's logic and reason.

M 

Main character:

The main character is the central character around whom the events revolve and with whom the audience is intended to most identify.

Metaphor:

A direct comparison, used when you describe someone or something as if they were something else. If the comparison uses the words 'as' or 'like', it is called a simile: Human breath is like a dangerous weapon.

N 

Narrator:

The narrator is the one who tells a story, the speaker or “the voice” of an oral or written work. Although it can happen, the narrator is rarely the same person as the author.

Novel:

A novel is a long and complex story, usually with several characters and many related events.

O 

Omniscient narrator:

An omniscient narrator has a godlike perspective, seeing and knowing everything that happens, including what all the characters are thinking and feeling.

Onomatopoeia:

A term used about words that sound like the thing that they are describing. Animal sounds may be the best examples: quack, meow, croak, and roar!

Oxymoron:

A paradoxical antithesis with only two words: freshly frozen, deathly life.

P 

Parallelism:

The use of successive verbal constructions in poetry or prose which correspond in grammatical structure, sound, metre, meaning, etc. E.g. Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I may remember. Involve me and I will learn.

Paraphrase:

When working with difficult and/or condensed texts - typically poetry (and Shakespeare's plays), it is a good idea to make a paraphrase of the text to clarify its meaning. To make a paraphrase, you "translate" somebody else's words into your own, thus making the text simpler but without losing its essential meaning. A paraphrase is written in prose and can be done line by line, stanza by stanza, or whatever suits the text and your purpose.

Pathos:

Appealing to the receiver's emotions.

Personification:

A figure of speech which gives human qualities to inanimate objects, animals and ideas. The wind can howl, cats can smile, and hope can die.

Plot (and story):

The plot of a story is the order in which the author has chosen to tell the events of a story. It may or may not be chronological. The chronological order in which those events would have happened is called story.

Point of view:

The position from which the events of a story are observed or considered is called point of view. The author must choose to present the story from either a neutral point of view, one person’s point of view, or the points of view of several characters. They can be participants in the events, or simply observers.

Protagonist:

Protagonist is another term for the central character around whom the events revolve and with whom the audience is intended to most identify. If the protagonist has an opponent, he/she would be called the antagonist.

R 

Receiver:

In the communication model it is the general term used for the audience/listener/reader.

Refrain:

The part of a song of poem that is repeated, especially at the end of each verse (song) or stanza (poem).

Rhetoric:

The art of using language in a way that is effective or that influences people - rhetorical device.

Rhetorical question:

A question you answer yourself, or that needs no answer.

Rhyme:

When two words sound the same, especially at the end of each line.

Rhythm:

- or metre - a sequence of feet. A foot is a combination of stressed and unstressed syllables. The most common foot is an iamb: an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed one, as in da-DUM.

S 

Scene:

In prose fiction, a scene is one part of the story during which there is no change in time or place.

Second-person narrator:

The second-person narrator uses a “you” about the main characters and his/her actions. It will feel as if this type of narrator is addressing the reader, or as if the reader is a character in the story, which is quite weird, and therefore a second-person narrator is rarely seen.

Sender:

In the communication model it is the general term used for the speaker/writer.

Setting:

Setting refers to the time and place of a story. If the focus is on the conditions and/or values and norms of people at a particular time and place, we talk about milieu or social environment.

Short story:

Short story is the term used about a brief work of prose fiction which usually focuses on one incident, has a single plot, a single setting and few characters. It tends to provide little action, hardly any character development, but simply a snapshot of life.

Showing: Showing is a narrative technique in which a character’s feelings and mood etc. are expressed in an indirect way (through what the character says and/or does) so that the reader may create his/her own images and understanding.

Six Ws:

The six elements that must be covered in an article: What has happened to Who, Where and When, How and Why.

SOAPSTone:

Acronym for the elements you look at when analysing non-fiction: Speaker - Occasion - Audience - Purpose - Subject - Tone.

Sonnet:

A classical poetic form which has 14 lines, subdivided through its rhymes into two parts. The Petrarchan or Italian sonnet: I = 8 lines, an octave, rhyming abbaabba, and II = 6 lines, a sestet, rhyming cdcdcd (or cdecde). The metre is an iambic pentameter (da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM da-DUM). Shakespeare created his own version which has slightly different rhymes. 

Standfirst:

An introductory paragraph in an article, separated from the body of the text, which summarizes the article.

Stanza:

The grouping of lines in a poem, like the 'paragraphs' of the poem.

Strapline:

An additional headline above or below the main headline.

Stream of consciousness:

In literature, stream of consciousness is a narrative technique in which a character’s thoughts and feelings are expressed as a continuous flowing series of images and ideas running through the mind, thus imitating the way humans think.

Symbol:

A symbol is an object, a person or an event that represents or stands for something else, usually a general quality or an abstract idea.

T 

Tabloid:

A newspaper with small pages, traditionally popular in style and dominated by sensational stories, e.g. The Sun. Today, also some serious newspapers use the small size.

Telling:

Telling is a narrative technique in which the narrator tells the reader directly what characterizes the characters in a story – what they are like.

Theme:

Theme is the central idea, opinion or message that is expressed in the story. The heart and soul of the story.

Third-person narrator:

The third-person narrator uses “he”, “she” or (more rarely) “they”. This type of narrator provides the greatest flexibility to the author and is therefore the most commonly used narrator in literature. The third-person narrator’s point of view is what determines the type even more. If the point of view is from the outside, with no access to the thoughts and feelings of the characters, we call it an objective third-person narrator. If the narrator has access to one character’s thoughts and feelings, it is a limited (or restricted) third-person narrator. And finally, if the narrator has access to the thoughts and feelings of several characters, it is an omniscient third-person narrator.

Tricolon:

A list of three items, building to a climax, e.g. ... the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Turning point: A turning point is a point (usually an event) in a story where the plot takes a (sometimes unexpected) turn, and things change because of this. In long texts, there may be more than one turning point.

U 

Unreliable narrator:

An unreliable narrator (usually a first-person narrator) gives his or her own understanding of a story, instead of the explanation and interpretation the author wishes the reader to obtain.

[rustandruin]

Top 5 bisexual characters in anything? 😘😘

LOUISE. I nearly died laughing when I saw this hours ago, and now I’m laughing in delight all over again. What a perfect ask. (I recently made a list of shows with great bi rep for someone else, who didn’t really ask for it but I am that extra.) But I’m always game to celebrate all the wonderful bisexuals who exist in fiction. (BTW, limiting this list to only 5 proved harder than expected, because we’ve had such a wealth of representation in recent years, even if it’s not all perfect, or some characters may not quite use that label for themselves.)

In any case, here are my current faves:

5. Korra (Legend of Korra)

I loved Korra from the moment I met her and her tiny self confidently declared that she was the Avatar. But while I thought it would be nice for her to end up with Asami, because why would the Avatar, a soul that is not constrained by the bounds of gender, be limited in their sexual orientation, I didn’t actually expect it to happen. Because years of TV watching had taught me otherwise. But then something magical happened, and it actually became canon. Korra and Asami did have feelings for each other after all. And now I get to read a graphic novel trilogy where my favourite Avatar works out her sexual identity while I slowly figure out my own. 

4. Ianto Jones (Torchwood) 

Ianto was always my favourite character when I first watched this series when it first premiered all those many years ago, but it’s only upon a recent rewatch that I realised just how sexually fluid that entire cast of characters was. (Not that I’d expect anything less from a show where Jack Harkness is the lead. But still, this is insane for a show that premiered in the early 00′s.) Nevertheless, there’s something about Ianto Jones in particular that made him my firm favourite early on. I think it has something to do, with the reason why I love him so much now: he has a clear emotional journey from when he loses his girlfriend at the beginning of the series, to being attracted to, and later falling for, Jack. There’s something simple and quite nuanced about the way he explains to his sister that it isn’t all men he’s attracted to (or rather, loves), but rather, just Jack. 

3. Henry “Monty” Montague (Gentleman’s Guide to Vice and Virtue)

Monty is the teenage personification of a walking bisexual disaster, and I couldn’t love him more. He’s smart, but selfish, sensitive, but quite rude. Not to mention, privileged, entitled, and utterly insensitive to the plight of anyone else but himself. He’s a complete flirt, but also in love with his best friend. All of this combines to a fantastic journey of growth and self-discovery that sees him transcend his previous tendencies and grow to be a better person who is worthy of the boy he loves. Oh, and the most impressive part? He’s the bisexual protagonist of a historical YA novel, written by a bisexual author who took pains to ensure that everything was guided by modern sensibilities even though it is set at a time when attitudes toward the LGBTQIA community were less than friendly. (Also the sequel features Monty’s most likely asexual sister who might be romanced by a lady pirate captain, as she attempts to attend medical school like she so deserves. I don’t know how I’m supposed to just sit around and wait.)  

2. b) John Constantine (Legends of Tomorrow, Hellblazer) 

John is technically my first favourite bisexual character ever, because I loved him before I even knew what that label was, or that I identify as it. Instead, I just read the Hellblazer comics as they followed the adventures of my favourite smart-talking, hard-smoking, trenchcoat-wearing occult detective. (The only thing I love more than a detective is one that uses magic. See also: Harry Dresden, and Skulduggery Pleasant. I have a type.) But then as talk of the TV series came about, I saw somewhere that he was bi and lost my shit a little (In retrospect, it feels silly that it took me as long as I did to figure myself out). Of course, the NBC show did not honour that aspect of his identity, which makes me only gladder that he’s going to be a regular on Legends of Tomorrow next season because Matt Ryan was born to play him. 

2. a) Rosa Diaz (Brooklyn Nine-Nine)

How do I love Rosa Diaz? Let me count the ways. She’s a fantastic friend and amazing co-worker who has her colleagues’ backs even when they’re at their most stubborn and uncooperative. Stephanie Beatriz’s performance over these last five seasons has imbued her with a growing sense of warmth under that tough demeanour that only emphasises how much she’s grown as a character. (And the journey we’ve gotten to see her go on.) But beyond being a hilarious character with many levels who constantly kicks ass and is also the most relatable, she got to have a coming out arc that has been sensitively crafted, after Beatriz herself requested her own real-life orientation be reflected on screen. It’s a perfect example of how a character’s sexual identity can inform and enrichen their relationships without detracting from who they are. And I couldn’t be more grateful for it.

1. Robert Sugden (Emmerdale)

Look, I love Robert, but I never actually expected him to top this list. But then I gave it some more thought watched Aaron’s reunion speech, and I realised that it actually makes sense that he would. He’s a smart, funny, at times self-serving and flawed character who’s been through a lot. But somewhere along the way, he’s managed to grow and go on a journey of self-acceptance and find love and happiness and a family. (In some ways he’s a grown up Monty.) Like many of the characters on this list, he’s also got layers. He’s schemed and lied and cheated his way in and out of trouble several times over, but that’s only made him a more fun character to watch. (At least for me.) This is of course in part to Ryan Hawley’s performances, which has had to sell various facets of Robert’s personality, while retaining all the things it is that we love about him. 

Also, for me personally, as someone who regularly writes fic about this character, and from this character’s point of view, I feel a bit more of a personal connection to him. I’ve used his feelings and in-show experiences as a launching pad for my own writing and as an outlet to explore whatever it is I might be feeling or headcanoning in the moment. It’s helped me grow as a writer and a person, and sometimes what’s what you need your favourite characters to do for you. No matter which stage of your life you may be in. 

HONOURABLE MENTIONS:  Jesper Fahey (Six of Crows/Crooked Kingdom), Loki (Marvel), River Song (Doctor Who), Waverly Earp (Wynonna Earp), Petra Solano (Jane the Virgin), Dutch (Killjoys), Darryl Whitefeather (Crazy Ex-Girlfriend), Margo Hansen (The Magicians), Charity Dingle (Emmerdale), Clara Oswald (Doctor Who), Callie Torres (Grey’s Anatomy), H.G. Wells (Warehouse 13), Bob Belcher (Bob’s Burgers, not confirmed, but would be amazing), Gomez and Morticia Addams (The Addams Family - not confirmed, but come on), Salem Saberhagen (Sabrina the Teenage Witch - again, not confirmed, but come on) 

[austincitylimitlessworld]

Modern Girls 1986: A Fable Retold

Back in 1986, Siskel and Ebert, in their critique synopsis show “At the Movies” gave this movie two thumbs down. When I re-watch their review today, I can’t help but consider that they failed to grasp the subtext. Call it generational blindness, but upon repeat viewings of the film itself, I began to notice a strange undercurrent. It dawned on me during the final scene in which CeCe, after spending an entire night chasing her dream rock and roller, Bruno X, decides not to go with him to Rio, but rather stay in L.A. with her three friends. I propose to you now that “Modern Girls” is the story of “The Wizard of Oz” as retold through 80s glossy neons and a seemingly cavalier group of young women who have nothing to do.

           I know this sounds absurd, but stay with me.

           The film itself takes place in the same universe of night clubs and burn out as does “Party Monster” nearly two decades later, but it takes place on Los Angeles rather than New York, and in real time rather than as a retrospect written by a real-life sensationalist club kid turned author. The characters here are fictional, and a fraction older than Alig and St. James during their hey-day. Our three initial protagonists, Margo, Kelly, and CeCe work at dead-end McJobs despite (or perhaps because) of the fact that Margo holds a B.A. in Comparative Literature, Kelly is beautiful enough to be a model, and CeCe has an entrepreneurial spirit. Nonetheless, they are relegated—as so many of my generation were—to cold phone calling, working at a pet shop, and selling clothes at a second-rate department store. On the day in question, CeCe, who we’ll find out in a

moment is our Dorothy character, is fired for trying to reach a young shopping crowd by “distressing”* a pair of jeans.

           The trio heads home to their bachelorette pad, where they convene on a typical early evening ritual: a few quiet hours on a Friday dusk. CeCe has decided that she desperately needs a night out. She has not divulged to her roommates that she has lost her job and they have no real reason to suspect anything. The department store-- and by extension their plastic-decored apartment—has become her Kansas. Everything is mundane, from her low-end job to their daily routines as roommates; even supposedly thrilling nights out at various night clubs all around town. She craves something else, something to take her out of all this sameness. Eventually the answer comes in the form of a fictionalized one-hit-wonder MTV star named Bruno X. Bruno is, on the surface, sort of an amalgam of Billy Idol, Sid Vicious, and Dave Gahan of Depeche Mode. Within the context of the movie, though, Bruno is the Fortuneteller/Wizard, who both ushers CeCe into a night of wish fulfillment but also forms the catalyst for her realizing that in the end she prefers reality to fantasy.

           But I digress.

           At the start of the night, the girls’ plan to have a no-holds-barred evening out is thwarted by Kelly, who has taken the car to go after a D.J. boyfriend who treats her abysmally. Fortunately for the Margo and CeCe, Kelly’s would-be date Clifford shows up with a vehicle borrowed from one of his driver’s ed students. Now Kelly is beautiful yet lacks any belief in herself and the journey truly begins with her betrayal; she is a stand-in for the Scarecrow, who is the first character Dorothy comes across in TWOO. Clifford is the Cowardly Lion who seems to have no courage when it comes to either women (he scored this date with Kelly by buying a bird from her and when that doesn’t catch her attention he goes back to buy three more) or the world-at-large (like the women, he works a menial job but in actuality is a bookworm who laments “Nobody reads in L.A.”) In a sense, Kelly and Clifford suffer from the same milieu—they are at odds with the world around them yet cannot initiate any change into their lives on their own.

           In contrast, Margo (whom a quiz in Cosmo defines as ten points bitchier than Kelly) and CeCe (six point sexier), seem to have more of an ability to change things; only they don’t recognize it in themselves at the outset. As we’ve already defined CeCe as Dorothy, let’s take a look at Margo.

  *Distressing: purposefully ripping clothes during the manufacturing process in order to increase their value. This was a very trendy look in the 80s and is making a comeback in the new millennium.

           Margo is the Tin Man. She seemingly has no heart. Her façade is one of cool detachment, yet as CeCe tells Clifford: “When Kelly had no place to live, Margo took her in and took care of her. And me, when I’m broke, Margo just ‘forgets’ to ask me for my share of the rent.” Margo is the most obvious study of character arc in this movie. She is the one who outwardly has the most growth. Yet, unlike CeCe—who starts out as a silly daydreamer and learns to be happy where she is by the end of the film—you know that Margo has it in her the whole time. Out of the three roommates, she is the smartest and savviest. It is she who orchestrates the adventures of the evening, and as we join her and her two companions at their first club, she reveals to Clifford that she has dated nearly every man in the place. When he asks about them, she callously lists their imperfections, ranging from “great body, but hairy shoulders” to “oh he’s so nice…boring”. She seems jaded, and perhaps rightfully so. The city is full of jerks. In the parlance of Oz speak, she has no heart. She has forced herself to become hollow so as to deal with the myriad of freaks and losers she has had to endure.

           Speaking of Oz itself, as a place it translates to the succession of clubs they visit during this night’s journey. Although the first one they visit is clearly familiar as indicated by Margo’s knowledge of its regulars, it stands in place of Munchkin land. Downtown L.A. is a veritable concrete sea of yellow-brick-roadness, and Bruno X is the wizard they are all chasing down as a favor to CeCe, who fancies him as the solution to her disillusioned life. Every stop along the way from Sharkey’s Bar, where Kelly, in a misplaced effort of trying to find her strength through a drug haze is abandoned by two sideline characters Ray and Tanya is instead nearly raped to the Goth themed Club Voodoo where Clifford exclaims “Everyone here looks suicidal!” are replacements for different outlying areas of Oz. Sharkey’s is the haunted wood, fraught with danger; Club Voodoo is The Wicked Witch of the West’s castle, where all hope goes to die. By the end of the night, they have heeded their own yellow brick road including the famed Hollywood Walk of Fame and a mural which reads “You are the star”.

As the darkness wears on, Margo becomes more and more frustrated at CeCe’s scatter-brained desires. They have been chased by terrorists after they follow the wrong limo, until they are forced to take cover behind an alley dumpster. A short time later, Margo has broken one of her stilettoes. She and Clifford are lagging half a block behind CeCe, who is still determined to find the savior that will take her away from a life she finds barely tolerable. They pass a bookstore. Clifford stops to scan some of the titles in the street lights. “Nobody reads in L.A.” he laments. It is here that Margo confesses that she was a comparative lit major, and there is a momentary recognition between the two, yet Margo, trying to maintain her Tin Man like exterior quickly covers by quipping “I mostly majored in men”.

“And how were your grades in that subject?” Clifford asks.

“Lousy. But I’m not giving up. I know the perfect guy is out there.”

“What’s perfect? A guy with perfect teeth, big balls and a nice car?”

“Well, so I have my standards.”

“Sure. No reason you should have to settle for a human being.”

She throws her broken shoe at him, and in exasperation responds “Just give me a break, will you?”

“Why don’t you stop looking so hard? I will if you will.”

Her façade breaks and they kiss. The Tin Man curse is lifted.

Meanwhile, Kelly, although still fragile, has found some semblance of self during the night. It will be a work in progress, but one gets the sense that she has also broken a long-held mistaken belief that she is worthless without a man. She is no longer the Scarecrow dancing to please for the jilters and the would-be rapists. Instead, she can rely on her urban family to pull her through as she learns how to stand on her own. Likewise, Clifford has stopped being cowardly and stood up for himself as a man by challenging undoubtedly the most intimidating of the bunch, Margo. The irony here is that, just as Kelly has always been more intelligent than people gave her credit for, and Margo undoubtedly always had a heart, Clifford always had courage.

But what of our Dorothy, you may ask. Well, at dawn they reach the Santa Monica Airport, where CeCe has learned along the way that Bruno will be boarding his private jet for Rio. Rio is CeCe’s Emerald City and Bruno is the Wizard who will grant her the wish she has wanted throughout the course of this movie. The twist here is that while Dorothy knew all along she wanted to return to Kansas, CeCe consciously wanted to leave it. Yet they reach the same conclusion.

As CeCe prepared to leave her friends behind at the saccharine (perhaps sincere) promises of Bruno, something in her sits uneasily in regards to this decision. She finally breaks the spell when Bruno offers to “take care of everything”. It occurs to her that this would mean sacrificing her own will, her independence, and her very life as she knows it. Suddenly the fairy tale doesn’t seem so tantalizing anymore. She wouldn’t be the author of her own story; someone else would. She halts.

“Cecelia, what’s the matter?” her dream man inquires.

“I don’t think I can go with you.”

He becomes visibly perturbed that his self-proclaimed dream girl, whom he has been pursuing all night, has suddenly and inexplicably changed her mind. “One,” he demands, gesturing purposefully, “give me one good reason why not.”

“Because…I don’t want you to take care of everything,” is her answer. This is her proclamation that “There’s no place like home.” She has shed her childish mooning, and moves toward the embrace of her two long-time pals and her new friend “Cliffy” as she calls him.

This was the “A-ha!” moment for me in the movie. I had watched it all the way through, just as I had as a teenager, enjoying it as a mindless romp. But now I had to rethink it entirely from the beginning.

[philippmichelreichold]

#review #scifi Space Dreadnoughts by Dave Drake, et al

#review #scifi Space Dreadnoughts by Dave Drake, et al

Space Dreadnoughts is a Military Science Fiction anthology by David Drake, Martin H Greenberg and Charles G Waugh. The contents in order of appearance are: •"Introduction: A quick Look at Battle Fleets" by David Drake •"The Only Thing We Learn" by Cyril M. Kornbluth •"C-Chute" by Isaac Asimov •"Allamagoosa" by Eric Frank Russell (won the Hugo Award for best short story in 1955) •"A Question of Courage" by J. F. Bone •"Superiority" by Arthur C. Clarke •"Hindsight" by Jack Williamson •"The Last Battalion" by David Drake •"Shadow on the Stars" by Algis Budrys •"Time Lag" by Poul Anderson

The first Military Sci Fi story I remember is the Star Trek TOS episode "Balance of Terror," in which Enterprise duels with a Romulan interloper. The military conflict was setting to other conflicts between the crew, the story was full of suspense, and actual battle was a small part of the story. And so it is here.

The book's title is a misnomer. The back cover blurb is misleading-- "Massive and arrogant, they patrol the final war zone-- deep space. All great battleships before them-- . . . are mere toys in comparison." It goes on about "bristling artillery" and "battalions of soldiers." I expected fleet actions involving capital ships. Tactics. Maneuvers. Gunplay. While there are fleet actions and even battleships in some of these stories, they are mere backdrops on a stage where people play out the stories. Truly good Science Fiction involves people, and in all these stories, the people overshadow the military settings that serve only to bring out the characters and whatever lessons there are to be learned from them. All of these stories are well worth reading.

"Introduction: A quick Look at Battle Fleets" Mr Drake's introduction is a wonderful retrospective about the history of the Dreadnought battleships with a mention of two 1950's Astounding essays on the armaments of spaceships-- one by Willy Ley, the other by Malcolm Jameson. If one is going to write stories about ship-to-ship combat, the introduction is a good starting point. But only a starting point. One should definitely read Mahan, and consider the lessons of Taranto and Pearl Harbor. And the US Navy's Harpoon's and Tomahawk's are wonderful arguments in favor of missles over guns. One should also consider the time honored techniques of ramming and boarding actions.

Perhaps the question of guns vs missles is mooted today. Todays real world warships employ both-- including the Iowa class heavy battleships brought out of retirement and refurbished for President Reagan's naval buildup of the 1980's. The arms race has continued in Sci-Fi beyond what could be imagined with a knowledge of 1950's physics. The Ley and Jameson essays were written before fighters raked Formoria, before rail guns, and CTD imploders, before GRASER's, X-ray LASER's and phaser banks, before the Moties bombarded Mote Prime with asteroids, and before Captain Sheridan laid a gigaton on Z'ha'dum.

"The Only Thing We Learn" Kornbluth tells a cautionary tale of faded Imperial glory. The barbarians at the gates will one day have descendants that are as decadent and prissy as the effete and ineffectual empire they deposed and replaced. History blurs and magnifies the epic tales of glory. The details are lost. The character is lost. One day a fresh wave of barbarians sweeps aside succcessors that their ancestors would be ashamed to acknowledge. The reader may decide what relationship if any there is between this story and the quote from Friedrich Hegel. A fun story despite the dire consequences for the past and future losers. In  his column, "Rereading Kornbluth", Robert Silverberg calls The Only Thing We Learn, "a subtle, oblique, elliptical, sardonic piece of work."

"C-Chute" Dr. Asimov wrote this story in 1951. It is a psychodrama set aboard a passenger ship taken as a prize by a race of chlorine breathers in Earth's first intersteller war. Each of the passengers is sketched by Asimov to reveal their several flaws of personality, physicality or character. Each has reasons why he should not exit the cabin via the C-chute, EVA, and enter and retake the control room from outside the ship. The reason for the dubious hero to take the heroic action required to retake the ship is one unlikey to appear in the work of any author but Dr. Asimov.

"Allamagoosa" This story won the 1955 Hugo for best short story. It's a farcical look at officious bureaucracy of the greatest gravity. It's sort of a shaggy dog story, wink, wink. This story in and of itself is worth buying the book for. The build up and so obvious in hindsight ending is fresh enough to be as enjoyable today as it was then.

"A Question of Courage" Sometimes flair and heedless risk taking can be mistaken for true personal courage. When the genuine article appears, there's no mistaking it. Bone craftliy deveops his characters and sets the reader up for the old maidish Captain "Cautious Charley" Chase of Lachesis to reveal his true nature. It is available from Project Gutenberg.

"Superiority" Sir Arthur requires no introduction for this story, a reductio ad absurdum about the principle of Illusory Superiority. Technology and bedazzlment with the latest, most theoretically wonderful advances are no substitutes for common sense and sound military doctrine. Perhaps this should serve as a cautionary tale at a time when Iraqi insurgents hack into our drones. According to Wikipedia, this gem was required reading at West Point. The reader easily empathizes with the narrator and his plight, revealed at the end.

"Hindsight" Jack Williamson has won both the Nebula and the Hugo Awards, and had a career that spanned about seventy years. This story involves temporal mechanics and love, oppression and liberation, and meeting engagements. Incidentally, the guns employed by the Astrach's fleet are of 20-inch caliber and fire four salvos per second. It's a tightly written story, though I think the ending is a little drippy.

"The Last Battalion" Imagine that Hitler did not die in a bunker in Berlin, but escaped via U-Boat to a secret Waffen-SS base in New Swabia. There German scientists built flying saucers from which they reached the moon to to mine aluminum and build more flying saucers. Now imagine them getting into a war with aliens. With things not looking so good, they kidnap a US Senator to let him know what is going on, intending to drag the US into the conflict. Before they can get where they're going with the Senator, the aliens lay a nuke on their Antartic base. They drop the Senator off to find his own way home. He asks them what they will do. Their colonel replies, we are SS-- we will fight.

"Shadow on the Stars" Budrys's Farlans are felinoid aliens who at first blush look like humans in cat suits. But they are, on a closer look, "raving paranoid quote." The paranoia is pathological and eventually fatal for Farla-- any military leader with sufficient ability to be effective cannot be trusted by Farla's rulers, and will be killed at the earliest sign of that fatal disease, military competence. The story is a retrospective, the central character telling how he and Farla came to be in their present straits. It is too late for him to convey the warning against trusting Earth, and to late to avoid the inevitable dissolution of Farla.

I have a problem accepting the plot device Budrys uses to set up the narrative, but otherwise the story is interesting and fun to read. The prose is a bit over decourous and affected, but that brings out the effeteness and pretentiousness of the Farlan culture. At the start, the Farlans are hard-pressed by a barabarian culture, the Vilk, and need a strong, capable leader to drive them back. OF course the strong, capable leaders keep their heads down so has not to find themselves assassinated by the Ministry of Preparedness-- and then comes L'Miranid. A previously unknown reservist, he quickly dominates the Fleet and whips them into shape. Victory follows victory until the Vilk host is driven back, their subject planets pounded to rubble, and a Farlan imposed king seated upon their throne.

The real story action is not fleet engatgements and daring raids, though. The story is related by Henlo, one of those capable leaders who has balanced command of a capital ship wtih avoiding notice by the governmental hunters down of competence. He starts the story as having a clear understanding of Farla's problems and the steps necessary to remedy them, but can't afford to be noticed. He becomes L'Mararind's aid, admirer, vice-admiral, intended assasin and successor, and finally, his unwilling co-conspirator and successor. Unwilling to be assasinated himself, he seizes control of the Farlan government. By this time, the sad (for Farla) truth is known to him, but (I love Latin quotes.) "alea jacta est." This is a fine little story with a lovely twist toward the end.

"Time Lag" Poul Anderson has won both the Hugo and Nebula Awards. Time Lag is a study in contrasts-- evil, greedy invaders against noble, selfless defenders. Chertkoi is a heavily overpopulated industrial planet, drowning in pollution and resource starved. Vaynamo is pristine, with a population sustainable through resource management. Vayanmo is never the less technologically advanced, with the technology's goal as preservation rather than exploitation. Expolitation is the name of Chertkoi's game. It's people conquer other worlds to fuel the industrial fires that smother their world under a cloud of pollution.

The archetype of the Chertoi is the Admiral commanding the invasion fleet. He is matched against the story's view point character, Elva. Elva is the widow of a Vayanmoan noble and prisoner of the Admiral. He is gross, vulgar and uncouth. She is pretty, cultured and well-mannered. He is a love struck boor, hopelessly smitten by her. She subtly endures his presence to manipulate him so that she an return herself and the other captives to Vayanmo in a portrayal that is believable and sympathetic. The invasion is a leveraged takeover in three stages-- a scouting raid, a strategic strike to destroy what little industry the Vayanmo posses, and a full-scale invasion. The title relativistic time lag (fifteen years) gives the Chertkoi time to build their invasion fleet and the Vaynamo time to prepare their reception.

Image cover art under fair use for the review. Contact publisher for reuse.

My text creative commons 4.0

190417

[forest-of-stories]

The “Evolution” of a Problematic Shipper

[I’ve been working on this lengthy post, which is about my early adventures in X-Men: Evolution fanfiction, for a very long time.  So, here it is, friends.  Please note a content warning for some discussion of abuse, mostly in fiction.  Also, my individual recollections are my own, and extremely subjective; others might remember the fandom differently than I do.]

Quite a few years ago, I wrote about how X-Men: Evolution was “the first fandom in which I participated heavily: watching the show as it aired, obsessing with other fans about the stories and relationships within, and writing reams and reams of (mostly very bad) fic.”  I still think that this is somewhat true; XME certainly inspired me to do all of those things more publicly and enthusiastically than I ever had before, especially where my One True Pairing was concerned.

For those who don’t know, X-Men: Evolution, which ran from 2000 to 2003, was essentially an animated High School AU of the X-Men comics in which our heroes lived and trained at the Xavier Institute but attended classes at their local high school.  For the first couple of seasons, mutants weren’t public knowledge as they are in the comics or movies, so a few characters used their powers for the first time without understanding what was going on.

The second episode, “The X-Impulse,” introduced viewers to (this world’s version of) Kitty Pryde, a lonely, sheltered fifteen-year-old who was terrified of her newly awakened ability to walk through walls, and to Lance Alvers, a juvenile delinquent whose own powers caused him to make awkward faces and terrible puns (and also earthquakes, I guess).  When they met, Lance seemed happy and excited to meet someone else with super-powers, but he quickly developed a plan to manipulate Kitty into helping him in his criminal shenanigans.  He presented himself as helpful and supportive, gained her trust, and, when she refused him help him, became aggressive and violent toward her and her family.  The episode ended with Kitty recruited by the X-Men and Lance joining the bad guys, and the two of them spent the rest of the season as enemies.

Watching this episode for the first time as a teenager, I knew that Lance’s behavior toward Kitty was wrong and abusive.  And yet, there was something about their early interactions that captured my imagination.  Maybe it was the fact that, whatever else might have happened, he was the first person to show her how to find confidence and joy in her powers.  Maybe it was the hug that they shared, or his line, “Once you own it, nothing can own you,” or the possibility, thwarted though it might have been, that they could have formed an understanding despite very different backgrounds and attitudes.  I liked forbidden romances, and I liked flipping the script to make unquestioned heroes seem villainous and villains seem sympathetic, and I liked when characters rebelled against controlling authority figures and communities, which is how I reimagined the X-Men when I first started writing about them.  I’m not saying that I explored any of those ideas well, but they were what started me writing: at first in collaboration with a friend from summer camp, who still deserves a lot of the credit, and then on my own.  I posted my solo stories on Fanfiction.net, where this fandom would enjoy some remarkable popularity that I’m not sure has ever transferred to any other platform.

I wrote about Lance infiltrating the X-Men (with psychic shields in place), and having to choose between his original mission and his romance with Kitty, whose own commitment to her team and its mission was starting to waver.  I wrote about her trying to figure out her identity beyond her friends’ expectations of her, even as Lance tried to be a better and less destructive person.  I wrote about Charles Xavier mind-controlling Kitty into dismissing Lance and falling back into unquestioning loyalty, giving way to several well-received sequels in which some of the characters tried to free themselves and each other from Xavier’s telepathic chokehold.  I wrote without much direction or concern for established continuity and characterization, and assumed the whole time that the show would never explore what I saw as the unrecognized potential of my OTP.  When canon actually went there, I was as surprised as anybody.

--

After Lance had spent the entire premiere of Season 2, “Growing Pains,” acting like a complete jerk to Kitty and her friends, his destructiveness endangered her life, and he saved her.  They became romantically involved soon afterward, and he became noticeably less of a jerk toward her and slightly less of a jerk toward others.  The series of fics that I was working on had decisively departed from continuity by this point, but I still incorporated elements of the season premiere into the installment that I was posting at the time.  And my fellow Lance/Kitty shippers, believing that canon had vindicated us, were transported with joy.  

If XME were popular today, I believe that there would be a lot more pushback against Lance/Kitty, in both good and bad ways.  Even at the time, the pairing was not universally beloved.  There were probably those who thought that its dysfunctional beginnings outweighed any potential for functionality or sweetness, and there were definitely those who thought that both characters would be better off with someone else.  It’s tempting to rewrite history with claims that “in my day, we shipped and let ship,” and it’s true that yesterday’s shipping conflicts didn’t use all of the same weapons that today’s do, but the fandom was still full of snarky, self-important brats who, no matter which side of any given argument we were on, believed that only we understood these characters and this world.

I say “we,” because I was not exempt from these behaviors.  I’ve sometimes thought that participation in this fandom brought out some of my worst habits.  But a lot of positive things came out of it as well.  It gave me the inspiration and confidence to write more prolifically than I ever had before (or maybe even since), and a chance to explore ideas that became deeply important to me: perhaps most importantly, I don’t think I’d written so extensively or publicly about the horrors of mind control.  Mutual devotion to our show and its fandom, and mutual conviction that Lance and Kitty were meant to be, connected me with a number of friends with whom I started exchanging emails and IMs and LiveJournal comments, and I’ve kept in touch with a couple of them to this day.  And even though I didn’t always respond constructively to attention and validation, XME fandom gave me what I think fandom has given a lot of creative young people: a wider audience for my writing, and a community who cared about the lives and feelings of cartoon characters as much as I did, and in many of the same ways.  My experience in this fandom was as uneven and as flawed (dare one say… problematic?), and often as delightful, as the show that inspired it.

And, for me, it had all started with Lance and Kitty.   As the show progressed, and for years after it ended, I continued to write more canon-compliant one-shot stories about them: missing scenes or predictions for the future. Their relationship was a given in more or less everything I wrote, whether or not they were the focus, and even when I’d fallen deeply into other fandoms, I still regarded it with nostalgic fondness.

--

I think that a lot of us have faced an uncomfortable tension between our social consciences and our nostalgia for the uncomplicated adoration with which we viewed our “problematic faves” as children.  I can’t provide a one-size-fits-all solution for that conflict.  I don’t know if one exists.

“Although I'm not going to say that I never thought that I'd be engaging with XME again in any way,” I blogged in late 2013, as my local cartoon-watching group began the first season, “I was somewhat surprised that I had any feelings about this show left, or anything else to say.”  But I did, and I said a lot of it in short ficlets of less than 500 words, which - since I was in graduate school at the time - were usually all that my energy levels would allow.

At around the same time, I started reading fandom-related posts on Tumblr, including the ones that stated or implied that redemption arcs in fiction, and/or shipping characters with people who had mistreated them, were universally bad because they would increase the likelihood of real-life abuse.  It’s not like I had never thought about that aspect of Lance and Kitty’s relationship (I’d addressed it more than once in the intervening time), but something about phrasing of those posts - or maybe something about my own mental state when I saw them - sent me into a spiral of self-doubt.  I wondered I would have to publicly apologize for and cast aside my affection for a pairing and a narrative that had been so deeply formative for me.  I wondered if my friends would consider me an abuse apologist if I didn’t, or even whether I might secretly be one.  

One of the reasons why it took me a long time to write this retrospective is that I wanted to avoid too many lengthy tangents or blanket statements about critical consumption of media, the toxic elements of “anti-shipping,” and the relationship between fiction and reality.  I do believe that such a relationship exists, but it’s much more complicated than “impure fiction is dangerous, especially if people might be enjoying it in ways that are not politically conscious or wholesome enough.”  Anybody who reads my blog knows that I am intensely critical of purity culture, and I do not believe in being unkind to real people on behalf of fictional characters (and I say this as someone who used to do exactly that).  Also, if you were going to ask, “So you’re saying you support [taboo and/or illegal act]?” please don’t.  I am not saying that, and we are not having that conversation.  Not all “problematic” stories are interchangeable or should be talked about in the same way, and all of the issues that surround them are bigger and more complex than any individual character or romantic arc.

So I am not suggesting that Lance and Kitty’s own romantic arc should not have happened, or that people shouldn’t enjoy it, when I point out that was built on some incredibly inappropriate behavior that reflects toxic cultural attitudes  even if it doesn’t “normalize” or “promote” them, and I can understand why some people (including at least one of my Cartoon Night buddies) would see it as irresponsible storytelling.   In “Growing Pains,” Lance harassed Kitty despite her trying to tell him off, used his powers in publicly destructive ways in order to hold her attention, and tried to keep her from leaving school with her friends.  Even when his protective leap caused her to regard him as something besides an enemy, it seemed to be setting up an arc in which her love - or the possibility of her love - would make him a better person. 

In reality, of course, it’s unrealistic at best for anyone to expect that they can “change” or “improve” the morality of a partner who has treated them (or others) badly.  But it’s an enjoyable and compelling fantasy, as are the “opposites attract” and “forbidden love” aspects of the pairing, all of which we shippers ate up with a spoon.  It’s vital for shippers to recognize the difference between reality and fiction, but it is not my place to assume - based solely upon the nature of the fantasy - that they’re unable to do so.

And, in-universe, I can absolutely understand why sheltered, idealistic Kitty might have given in to this fantasy.  But it doesn’t play out in the way that she - or I - initially expected.

I’ve seen the Season 2 episode “Joyride” so many times that I didn’t have to rewatch it in order to write this essay.  That’s the one in which Lance briefly joined the X-Men, in order to be close to Kitty and, hopefully, to become the kind of person that she might admire.  The story was full of cute moments in which they flirted, bantered, and ultimately worked together to solve a crisis.  It also spotlighted one of the biggest obstacles to their relationship, and despite what a lot of fanfic - including my own - suggested, that did not come from their respective teams’ objections.  Professor Xavier even encouraged Lance’s potential for redemption (which didn’t stop me from reading, writing, and endorsing fic in which he regularly meddled in his students’ love lives), and the other characters reacted to the situation in a variety of understandable, if not always admirable, ways.  No, the telling moment occurred when the team was running through aquatic rescue scenarios, and Lance cheerfully broke rank and “drowned” two other people in order to pull Kitty out of the water.  Here was his entire approach to redemption and to their relationship, summed up in one gesture: he wanted to ensure her safety and well-being, but didn’t always care what or whom he knocked down in the process.  This became even clearer toward the end of the season, when he tried unsuccessfully to chase her (and only her) away from a fight between their two teams, although her friends would still be in danger. This tension exploded in the third episode of Season 3, when Lance and his friends once again attacked the X-Men on school grounds, and Kitty shouted, “This is the real you, isn’t it?” Lance responded, “That’s right! I’m never going to be good enough for you!” (I typed that out from memory, too.)

Naturally, my fellow shippers and I were devastated by this development, and I, for one, wrote lots of angsty fic (often interspersed with the lyrics to late 1990s/early 2000s pop music)  in which the former couple pined for each other despite having been Torn Apart By Circumstances.  Years later, however, I’m proud of Kitty, and of the writers, for drawing that line in the sand, and for realizing that - although, as Charles pointed out, it would have been a good start - it wasn’t enough for Lance to be good for her.  Whether or not this was an intentional writing choice, the later seasons reflected an awareness that he was primarily the one responsible for making himself a better person.  

Yes, after Lance and his comrades joined the climactic battle even though he’d insisted at first that he didn’t care, he and Kitty got back together in the series finale. There were probably viewers who thought their reconciliation hadn’t been earned, as well as those who thought it had been.  Obviously, eighteen-year-old Nevanna (by then in her first semester of college) was one of the latter.  But I appreciate the time that they spent apart, and the fact that it came at least as much from from internal motivations as from external pressure, far more as an adult than I did as a teenager.

To be clear: you don’t have to like Lance/Kitty or pairings like it.  When I say that I regard it differently now, I am not trying to assert that “my ship is Unproblematic after all, so there!” because it isn’t.  Nor am I trying to suggest, “It’s okay that I had a Bad Ship, because I regret it now, and the rest of you are filthy sinners who should do the same.” I don’t, and you’re not, and you shouldn’t.  Or, rather, how you feel about your past shipping, and what kind of person it makes you, is not for me to decide.

I loved and built upon this pairing both despite and because of its problems, and that is one of the reasons why I try not to condemn other people - as long as they maintain that all-important boundary between fantasy and reality - for loving and building upon stories that have similar problems, or different ones altogether.

--

I was sixteen when I first started writing XME fanfic.  I’m thirty-three now.  I can easily imagine some of you asking, “When are you going to get over these imaginary fake not-real cartoon characters and get a life, Nevanna?” That is, I hope that my friends, whom I love and who love me, aren’t thinking along those lines, but it’s certainly a question that I have asked myself more than once.

Even when I was cheerfully participating in fandom in my youth, I still feared that my obsessions with fictional characters were bad for me, a sign that I wasn’t equipped to deal with or care about “real life.” In one diary entry, I wrote with certainty that I would have to abandon my fannish interests entirely when I started college.  If a large contingent of fans had loudly insisted that my interests were not only bad for me but bad for the world, that I was actively hurting others simply by writing about my chosen subject matter, that I was likely to enable or engage in actual criminal activity… I’m not sure what I would have done, but it probably wouldn’t have been what they wanted me to do, and it likely would have made me an even more unpleasant person to be around.

I tried my best to balance academic obligations with fandom and creativity when I did enter college, and sometimes failed spectacularly, but that owed as much to anxiety and poor time management skills, both of which are still everyday challenges for me, as it did to caring “too much” about stories.  I eventually earned a master’s degree, and found a series of jobs, in a field that is just a bit concerned with making sure people get to read whatever they want.  If I’m still “getting a life,” which I believe is an ongoing process, then my fandoms are just one part of it.  And after all this time, X-Men: Evolution is still one of those fandoms.  I find it easy and comforting and fun to write about these characters, and the only person who gets to decide whether I’m “over” them is myself.  

The last time I wrote anything that focused specifically on Lance and Kitty was a little more than two years ago, and the fic didn’t shy away from the troubled history of their relationship.  I have a preference for stories that at least acknowledge that history and the tension that comes with it, but I would never barge in and assume that because a content creator doesn’t check those boxes, they support real-life abusive relationships.

Would I still ship Lance and Kitty if I encountered them for the first time today? It’s difficult to say. Many aspects of their relationship are still things that I enjoy in fiction.  But my early interest in them was based on a specific set of assumptions about the characters, their world, and even the purpose of fanfiction, as well as, yes, some amount of ignorance about how romance and attraction worked.  I don’t want to enjoy their story, or others, solely in the way that I did when I was younger.  Most of the time, I prefer the all the ways that I enjoy stories now.

As I said earlier, I’m not proud of some of my actions in the XME fandom.  I regret sneering at the fanbase for another popular pairing that had dysfunctional beginnings, as if my OTP didn’t.  (The two pairings didn’t even have any common characters, so it’s not as if they challenged each other as far as I know, not that my attitude would have been okay even if they had.  I think I partly just enjoyed hating what so many people liked.)  I regret participating in an LJ community that publicly mocked specific people’s writing.  I regret sticking my nose into people’s reviews just to beg them to read my latest chapter, but not as much as I regret leaving at least one hostile review, with a very thin veneer of playfulness, when half of my OTP hooked up with another character in the middle of a multi-chapter fic.   And, all of that aside, there is a much longer list of regrettable choices that I made as a writer.  But I don’t regret looking at Lance and Kitty in their introductory episode and thinking, “There’s a story there, and I want to find out where it might go.”